GR 178520; (June, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 178520, June 23, 2009
AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-EAST RIZAL, AMABLE C. AGUILUZ and ANTHONY JESUS R. VINCE CRUZ, Petitioners, vs. ALLAN RAYMOND R. IGNACIO, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Allan Raymond R. Ignacio was employed by petitioner AMA Computer College, Inc. (AMACCI) and was transferred to its AMA Computer College-East Rizal (AMACC-ER) branch on August 16, 1999, to assist with renovations for an impending ISO 9000 certification inspection. As Maintenance Supervisor, respondent initiated the demolition of a concrete partition wall in a computer laboratory on August 18, 1999, based on a renovation plan he believed was approved after consultations with company officers and a meeting with department heads. On August 25, 1999, the company’s Audit Department filed a complaint against him for “threatening to damage company property, negligence or failure to exercise adequate asset control measures within one’s area of responsibility.” After an investigation where respondent presented his side, the Human Resource Department found him guilty of failing to secure written approval, not informing concerned departments, and not exercising due diligence, which exposed 35 computer units to potential loss/damage. He was dismissed on September 9, 1999. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled the dismissal was legal, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the dismissal illegal.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent Allan Raymond R. Ignacio was illegally dismissed.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that respondent was ILLEGALLY DISMISSED. The Court found that petitioners failed to prove by substantial evidence that respondent committed gross negligence justifying dismissal. The evidence showed respondent acted based on a perceived approved renovation plan, took precautionary measures, and no actual damage to the computers was proven. The loss of class records was not conclusively linked to his actions. The offense charged did not rise to the level of willful disobedience or gross negligence constituting serious misconduct or willful breach of trust. Furthermore, while procedural due process was observed, the dismissal lacked a valid substantive cause. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ordering petitioners to reinstate respondent and pay full backwages, and awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.