G.R. No. 176287 ; January 31, 2011
Hospital Management Services, Inc. – Medical Center Manila, Petitioner, vs. Hospital Management Services, Inc. – Medical Center Manila Employees Association-AFW and Edna R. De Castro, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Edna R. De Castro was a staff nurse at petitioner Hospital Management Services, Inc. – Medical Center Manila since September 28, 1990. On March 24, 1999, between 2:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m., an 81-year-old patient, Rufina Causaren, fell from her bed while trying to reach for a bedpan. The patient’s niece sought assistance from the nurse station where De Castro and a ward-clerk orientee were on duty. Instead of personally attending to the patient, De Castro directed the ward-clerk orientee to check on the patient. The patient’s vital signs were later found to be normal, and she was subsequently attended to by the physician on duty and the next shift’s nursing staff. Following an investigation, petitioner hospital terminated De Castro’s employment on July 20, 1999, citing violations of company rules, including negligence, failure to record and refer the incident, instructing staff to cover up the lapse, and carelessness in duty. De Castro filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled that the infraction was a less serious offense warranting only a 7 to 14-day suspension, not dismissal, and ordered reinstatement without backwages. The NLRC reversed, dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals then reversed the NLRC, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision but with modification, ordering payment of full backwages from the expiration of the suspension period until actual reinstatement.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Edna R. De Castro was illegally dismissed, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty for her infraction.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that while De Castro’s failure to personally attend to the patient constituted misconduct, it was not so grave as to warrant dismissal. The infraction was classified under the company’s Employee’s Handbook as a less serious offense (“commission of negligent or careless acts during working time or on company property that resulted in the personal injury or property damage causing expenses to be incurred by the company”), which prescribed a penalty of 7 to 14 days suspension for a first offense. The Court found no substantial evidence to support the allegation that De Castro aggravated her offense by influencing her co-employees to lie for her. Considering her almost nine years of service and the nature of the offense as a first infraction, the penalty of dismissal was too severe. The proper penalty was suspension for 14 days. Consequently, De Castro was ordered reinstated to her former position without loss of seniority rights and with payment of full backwages and other benefits from the expiration of the 14-day suspension period up to her actual reinstatement.