GR 168116; (April, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168116; April 22, 2008
BELLE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. ARTURO N. MACASUSI, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Belle Corporation employed respondent Arturo Macasusi as a grader operator. On June 10, 1999, while operating a Caterpillar equipment, Macasusi heard a loud cracking sound followed by several more. He stopped the equipment and reported the incident. The Motor Pool Supervisor’s investigation concluded the damage was caused by severe gear shifting while in motion. Belle Corporation found Macasusi guilty of gross negligence and dismissed him effective July 1, 1999.
Macasusi filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing there was no basis for the finding of gross negligence. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, finding the dismissal illegal. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision. The Court of Appeals subsequently modified the NLRC ruling, ordering Belle Corporation to pay separation pay and full backwages, upholding the finding of illegal dismissal.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) Whether Macasusi was a project or regular employee; and (2) Whether his dismissal for gross negligence was valid.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied Belle Corporation’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court held Macasusi was a regular employee. The employer failed to prove he was hired for a specific project with a predetermined period. His continuous employment since 1997, the lack of a report to the DOLE regarding project termination, and the absence of a clear project-based job assignment all indicated regular employment.
On the second issue, the Court ruled the dismissal was illegal. Under Article 282(b) of the Labor Code, termination for neglect requires the negligence to be both gross and habitual. Here, the alleged negligence was neither. The mechanical failure could have been due to ordinary wear and tear or use by other operators, not solely Macasusi’s actions. The evidence did not establish he operated the equipment with wanton disregard. The single incident, without a history of negligence, did not constitute habitual neglect. Any doubt in labor cases is resolved in favor of the employee. Consequently, Macasusi was entitled to separation pay and full backwages from his illegal dismissal until the finality of the decision.