G.R. No. 97239 May 12, 1993
International Rice Research Institute, petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission (Third Division) and Nestor B. Micosa, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Nestor B. Micosa was hired as a laborer by petitioner International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in 1977, bound by its Employment Policy and Regulations. The Miscellaneous Provisions of the manual stated that an employee convicted of a criminal offense involving moral turpitude may be dismissed. On February 6, 1987, Micosa stabbed and killed Reynaldo Ortega in a beer house in Los Baños, Laguna. He was accused of homicide on September 15, 1987. During the pendency of the case, Micosa applied for IRRI’s Special Separation Program, but the Director General disapproved it on January 9, 1990, citing a desire to retain his skills. On January 23, 1990, the trial court convicted Micosa of homicide but appreciated the mitigating circumstances of incomplete self-defense and voluntary surrender. Micosa applied for probation. On February 8, 1990, IRRI’s Director General confirmed Micosa’s appointment as a regular core employee, stating he may not be terminated except for justifiable causes as defined by the Labor Code. On March 30, 1990, IRRI’s Human Resource Development Head urged Micosa to resign due to his conviction. On April 4, 1990, the Laguna Parole and Probation Office informed IRRI that Micosa’s application for probation was meritorious. Micosa refused to resign. On April 22, 1990, IRRI charged Micosa with violating the personnel manual, asserting the crime involved moral turpitude. Micosa explained the act arose from defending himself and that his conviction did not involve moral turpitude. IRRI’s Grievance Committee recommended his continued employment, but on May 21, 1990, IRRI issued a notice of termination effective May 25, 1990. Micosa filed a case for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found the termination illegal and ordered reinstatement with backwages. The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the decision with modification, deleting the award of attorney’s fees. IRRI filed the instant petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the National Labor Relations Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion in finding that IRRI had no right to prescribe causes for dismissal not enumerated in Article 282 of the Labor Code.
2. Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that there is no basis to apply IRRI’s Institute Personnel Manual in dismissing Micosa on the sole ground that his conviction of homicide constitutes moral turpitude.
Corollarily, whether a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for dismissal from employment and whether a conviction of homicide involves moral turpitude.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The Court ruled that IRRI could not remove Micosa from his job absent a justifiable cause as defined by the Labor Code, as per the Director General’s letter confirming his regular status. Article 282 of the Labor Code enumerates just causes for termination, and conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is not among them. Neither can it be justified under Article 282(c) (fraud or willful breach of trust) or 282(d) (commission of a crime against the employer or immediate family), as the breach of trust must be work-related, and the crime must be against the employer or its representative. Micosa’s commission of homicide was outside the IRRI complex, after office hours, against a non-employee, and was not work-related or directed against IRRI. IRRI failed to show how the dismissal was necessary for the safety and welfare of its employees or its reputation. Micosa had an unblemished service record, and after his conviction, the Director General expressed confidence in him by disapproving his separation application and confirming his regular status. The Grievance Committee recommended his retention, and he was found worthy of probation. The termination lacked legal and factual basis. Furthermore, under IRRI’s own manual, the provision states an employee “may be dismissed,” which is permissive, not mandatory. On the issue of moral turpitude, the Court held that moral turpitude implies an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity contrary to accepted rules of morality. Whether a crime involves moral turpitude is a question of fact depending on the circumstances. Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of the crime. In this case, the trial court appreciated mitigating circumstances, including incomplete self-defense, indicating the act did not spring from a depraved mind. Thus, Micosa’s conviction for homicide did not involve moral turpitude. The National Labor Relations Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision.