G.R. No. 170811; April 24, 2007
Supreme Steel Pipe Corporation and Regan Sy, Petitioners vs. Rogelio Bardaje, Respondent

FACTS

Respondent Rogelio Bardaje, a warehouseman for petitioner Supreme Steel Pipe Corporation (SSPC), reported for work on August 19, 1999, wearing a long-sleeved shirt over his uniform, a common practice for protection. Security Guard Christopher Barrios loudly and arrogantly ordered him to remove it. Feeling insulted and singled out, Bardaje retorted, “Ano ba ang gusto mo, hubarin ko o magsuntukan na lang tayo sa labas?” A heated argument ensued but was averted by co-workers. SSPC placed Bardaje under preventive suspension and, after investigation, terminated his employment. The dismissal notice cited the August 19 incident and several prior infractions from 1997 to 1999, including charges of coercion, intimidation, inciting a fight, damaging company property, and inflicting injury.
Bardaje filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, ordering reinstatement with full backwages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, finding the dismissal valid. The Court of Appeals (CA) then reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, prompting SSPC’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Bardaje’s dismissal was illegal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision, ruling the dismissal illegal. For dismissal to be valid, two requisites must concur: the misconduct must be serious and must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties, showing him to be unfit to continue working. The Court found that Bardaje’s act of uttering a challenge to a fight, while improper, did not constitute serious misconduct warranting dismissal.
The incident was an isolated emotional response to Barrios’s provocative and arrogant manner. Bardaje had no actual intent to fight, as shown by the immediate intervention of others and the lack of physical violence. The Court emphasized that the power to dismiss is a drastic sanction; the employee’s past infractions, while noted, had already been condoned as he was given “a second chance” and continued employment without further penalty. The employer cannot resurrect these stale offenses to justify a subsequent dismissal. Furthermore, SSPC failed to prove that Bardaje’s continued employment posed a “serious and imminent threat” as required by law. The single heated exchange, under the circumstances, did not reach the level of severity that would render him unfit for employment. Thus, the dismissal was not for a just cause.