G.R. No. 181483 March 9, 2010
BLAZER CAR MARKETING, INC., and FREDDIE CHUA, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES TOMAS T. BULAUAN and ANALYN A. BRIONES, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents, spouses Tomas Bulauan and Analyn Briones, were employees of petitioner Blazer Car Marketing, Inc., owned by petitioner Freddie Chua. Briones was a secretary/warehouse clerk, and Bulauan was a driver. On November 18, 2003, Briones filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of 13th month pay, separation pay, and attorney’s fees. Bulauan filed a similar complaint on December 15, 2003, and the cases were consolidated.
Respondents alleged that on November 16, 2003, Briones reminded Chua to remit their SSS premiums and issue her an ID card. When Chua signed her ID, she commented that his signature looked different from one on a certificate he previously issued to Bulauan. Chua became furious and shouted at her. The next day, she was barred from work and told she was dismissed. Bulauan claimed that on November 17, 2003, Chua, holding a golf club, told him to leave his wife if he wanted to keep his job. The following day, he was also barred from work. Respondents posited their dismissal was due to Chua’s suspicion that they reported his alleged illegal manufacture and sale of car parts to the NBI.
Petitioners presented a different version, claiming Briones was caught making unauthorized company ID cards for other employees for a fee. They conducted an investigation and asserted that Briones was not dismissed but was told she could return to work during a conciliation conference, though she refused. They claimed Briones voluntarily stopped working to avoid investigation and filed the complaint preemptively. As for Bulauan, petitioners claimed he suddenly failed to report for work after learning his wife was being investigated.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal but ordered payment of prorated 13th month pay. The NLRC affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, declaring respondents were illegally dismissed and entitled to backwages and separation pay.

ISSUE

Whether respondents were illegally dismissed from their employment.

RULING

Yes, respondents were illegally dismissed. The Supreme Court sustained the Court of Appeals’ finding that respondents were dismissed without just cause.
The Court rejected petitioners’ claim that respondents voluntarily left their jobs. The filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with the charge of abandonment, as an employee who protests dismissal cannot logically be said to have abandoned work. The employer must affirmatively show substantial evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause.
The Court found petitioners’ claim that Briones was being investigated for making unauthorized ID cards to be a contrived excuse. The affidavits of co-employees did not state the IDs were made without authority; they indicated the IDs were made within company premises and submitted to Chua for his signature, which he affixed. The CA noted that if the IDs were unauthorized, Chua would have refused to sign or disowned his signature, which he did not. Furthermore, petitioners did not pursue any investigation or send a notice to explain why Briones stopped reporting for work if she was not dismissed.
Even assuming Briones made ID cards without authority, such act did not constitute serious misconduct warranting dismissal. Misconduct must be serious, relate to duty performance, and show the employee is unfit to continue working. It requires wrongful intent, which was absent. Briones made the IDs because employees needed them to apply for SSS loans, a responsibility that was petitioners’ to begin with. No material damage was caused to petitioners. The penalty of dismissal was not commensurate with the infraction. Where a less punitive penalty suffices, dismissal is too severe a consequence.
The petition was denied. The Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution were affirmed, declaring respondents illegally dismissed and entitled to full backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.