G.R. No. 202379. July 27, 2020.
SPC POWER CORPORATION, JOCELYN O. CAPULE, AND ALFREDO S. BALLESTEROS, PETITIONERS, VS. GERARDO A. SANTOS, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Gerardo A. Santos was hired by SPC Power Corporation (SPC) in 1997 as a stock keeper. In 2002, after being offered the position three times, he accepted the role of security officer and was given a regular appointment in 2005. He alleged he was not given a job description and was assigned tasks unrelated to security, including acting as a personal aide to his supervisor and participating in activities to prevent employees from forming a union. After a union was successfully formed in 2007, respondent claimed he and others involved in union-busting activities were targeted. On January 15, 2008, petitioner Alfredo S. Ballesteros issued a show-cause letter to respondent, followed by a 30-day preventive suspension effective January 16, 2008. After respondent submitted his explanation and attended a formal hearing, his preventive suspension was extended several times. On May 30, 2008, a Notice of Dismissal, signed by Jimmy Balisacan and petitioner Jocelyn O. Capule, terminated respondent’s services. Petitioners contended respondent was validly dismissed for gross incompetence and negligence as a security officer, citing incidents of theft, pilferage, and murder within the company premises. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent, finding the dismissal illegal due to lack of substantive and procedural due process. The NLRC reversed, finding valid dismissal for just causes. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision with modifications, reducing the awards for moral and exemplary damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent Gerardo A. Santos was illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that respondent was illegally dismissed as petitioners failed to prove by substantial evidence that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. The alleged infractions, such as stolen property and unresolved crimes, were not directly attributable to respondent’s gross negligence. The Court found the timing of the charges suspicious, noting they were raised only after the union was formed, supporting respondent’s claim that his dismissal was related to union-busting activities. The Court also ruled that the procedural due process was not complied with, as the extensions of preventive suspension were unreasonable and tantamount to constructive dismissal. Petitioners Ballesteros and Capule were held solidarily liable for the monetary awards as they acted in bad faith in effecting the dismissal. The awards for backwages, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees were upheld as proper.