GR 193676; (June, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 193676 & G.R. No. 194303; June 20, 2012
COSMOS BOTTLING CORP., Petitioner, vs. WILSON FERMIN, Respondent. / WILSON B. FERMIN, Petitioner, vs. COSMOS BOTTLING CORPORATION and CECILIA BAUTISTA, Respondents.
FACTS
Wilson Fermin, a forklift operator with 27 years of service at Cosmos Bottling Corporation, was accused of stealing a co-employee’s cellphone. The phone was found in his locker after a search. Fermin explained he hid it as a prank, intending to return it. After investigation, Cosmos dismissed him for theft, a violation of company rules. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC upheld the dismissal, citing gross misconduct and considering Fermin’s past infractions (disrespect to a superior and sleeping on duty) as aggravating.
Following his termination, the complainant co-employee, Luis Braga, executed an affidavit of desistance, stating he believed Fermin was merely playing a joke and had no intent to steal, and he forgave him. Fermin elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC and finding Fermin’s dismissal illegal, thereby entitling him to retirement benefits instead of reinstatement.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision, ruling the dismissal was illegal. The legal logic hinges on the two-fold requirement for a valid dismissal: just cause and due process. While the act of taking the phone constituted a violation, it did not rise to the level of serious misconduct warranting dismissal. Serious misconduct requires a wrongful intent and must be work-related. The Court gave credence to Braga’s affidavit of desistance, which corroborated Fermin’s claim of a prank, negating the perverse intent necessary for serious misconduct. The company failed to prove any material damage, as the phone was returned and the property was not company-owned.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the use of Fermin’s past infractions to justify dismissal. Previous offenses can only justify dismissal if the subsequent offense is similar, which was not the case here. Theft and infractions like disrespect or sleeping on duty are not analogous. Given Fermin’s length of service and the nature of the single mitigated offense, the penalty of dismissal was grossly disproportionate. The Supreme Court thus sustained the CA’s award of full retirement benefits in lieu of reinstatement, as the strained relations made reinstatement impracticable. The case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter for computation.