G.R. No. L-15073; May 26, 1960
OPERATOR’S, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, respondent.

FACTS

Rosalia Ricohermoso was a daily wage worker employed by Operator’s, Inc. since January 27, 1954. On April 8, 1957, she absented herself from work without obtaining prior permission from management because she eloped. She returned to work on May 21, 1957. The manager asked her to file a new application form for re-admission, but she refused, insisting on reinstatement to her old position. She did not work thereafter. The National Labor Union, of which Rosalia was a member, filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the company, alleging she was dismissed on May 21, 1957, for union membership and participation in a petition to remove a forewoman. The company denied the charge, claiming Rosalia had abandoned her job by being absent without permission, justifying her replacement. The Court of Industrial Relations found the evidence for unfair labor practice “shadowy and unsubstantial” and dismissed that charge. However, it found no animus of abandonment, attributing her absence to elopement, and that she stopped working because she refused the requirement to file a new application. The court ordered her immediate reinstatement without backpay and without loss of rights or diminution of privileges. Operator’s, Inc. appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations erred in ordering the reinstatement of Rosalia Ricohermoso despite her violation of the company’s standing policy requiring prior permission for absences and her refusal to file a new application upon her return.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations, holding that Rosalia Ricohermoso was not entitled to reinstatement. The Court disagreed with the industrial court’s conclusion that her elopement justified her absence as an “overpowering impulse of love,” noting this was inconsistent with the court’s own finding that her violation of the company’s known policy was unjustified. The requirement for prior permission was reasonable to allow management to adjust work schedules and prevent paralysis of operations. Upon her return after a long absence, the company’s requirement for a new application was also reasonable, given its belief she had abandoned her job. Her refusal to comply and instead filing an unfair labor practice charge was reprehensible and justified her separation from service. The Court cited precedent that an employer cannot be compelled to continue employing a person guilty of misfeasance whose continuance is patently inimical to the employer’s interests. The decision was modified to deny reinstatement. No costs.