G.R. No. 220998 . August 08, 2016.
Holcim Philippines, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Renante J. Obra, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Renante J. Obra was employed by petitioner Holcim Philippines, Inc. as a packhouse operator for nineteen years. On July 10, 2013, as he was about to exit the company premises, a security guard asked to inspect his backpack. Respondent refused, confided that he had a piece of scrap electrical wire in his bag, and requested the guard not to report the incident, asking if he could bring the scrap out or else he would return it to his locker. The guard did not agree, prompting respondent to hurriedly return to the Packhouse Office to remove the wire from his bag. He was later directed to the Security Office to write a statement, wherein he admitted the incident but asserted he had no intention to steal, explaining the wire was scrap he had asked from a contractor who removed it from the office and that he was unaware a gate pass was needed for such a small scrap item. Petitioner issued a Notice requiring him to explain and placed him on preventive suspension. In his explanation, respondent reiterated his lack of intent to steal, expressed remorse, and asked for a chance to correct his mistake. After meetings, petitioner dismissed respondent for serious misconduct on August 8, 2013, finding his claim of ignorance incredulous given his long tenure, and noting his refusal for inspection confirmed an intent to take the wire for personal use, violating company rules. Respondent sought reconsideration, which was denied. He then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding valid dismissal for theft. The NLRC reversed, holding dismissal was too harsh as the misconduct was not gross, considering his belief the wire was for disposal, the lack of damage to petitioner, his remorse, and his 19 years of service. The NLRC awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. The CA affirmed the NLRC ruling.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission that respondent was illegally dismissed.

RULING

The petition is partly meritorious. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the NLRC and CA that respondent was illegally dismissed, as his misconduct was not so gross as to warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal. The Court agreed that respondent took the scrap wire in the belief it was for disposal, a point petitioner never denied, and petitioner suffered no damage as the wire was not taken out. Respondent showed remorse and had an unblemished record of 19 years. The penalty must be commensurate with the offense. Citing analogous cases (Sagales v. Rustan’s Commercial Corporation and Farrol v. CA), the Court held that dismissal for a minor infraction involving valueless scrap, committed by a long-term employee with no wrongful intent, was unduly harsh. However, the Court modified the award. While the NLRC correctly awarded separation pay due to strained relations, it erred in computing it based on a monthly salary of ₱29,988.00. The proper basis is the respondent’s latest salary rate at the time of dismissal, which the records show was ₱23,742.00. Thus, separation pay is recomputed at one month’s salary for every year of service, amounting to ₱23,742.00 x 19 years = ₱451,098.00.