G.R. No. L-51299 December 29, 1982
Carmencita G. Visperas, petitioner, vs. Hon. Amado Gat. Inciong, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Labor and Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Carmencita G. Visperas, a regular employee of respondent Banco Filipino, was involved in a workplace altercation with co-employee Cesar Ramirez on February 19, 1977. The incident began when petitioner, after preparing a delayed debit memo, inquired about the oversight. Ramirez admitted the lapse, prompting petitioner to utter “tarantado” in a joking manner. Later, Ramirez confronted petitioner at her desk, resenting the remark. Petitioner then stated, “Alam ko matapang ka mangyari security guard ka dati,” which Ramirez took as an insult, leading him to slap petitioner. She retaliated by throwing a stapler. Their supervisor had earlier admonished them to stop.
Following the incident, the bank terminated petitioner’s services on March 16, 1977, for violating company rules on office decorum, and filed an application for clearance to dismiss. The Labor Arbiter granted the clearance but awarded severance pay due to procedural defect. The NLRC reversed, finding dismissal too severe and ordering reinstatement with back wages after a 30-day suspension. Respondent Deputy Minister of Labor, on appeal, reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision granting the clearance to dismiss.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of petitioner from employment was justified.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was not justified, constituting grave abuse of discretion by the Deputy Minister. The Court found that petitioner’s actions did not amount to willful disobedience or justify termination under the bank’s rules. Her initial remark, “tarantado,” was made jokingly and was not directed at a supervisor. Her subsequent comment about Ramirez’s former work was a reaction to his provocative presence and not a willful refusal to heed the supervisor’s earlier admonition to stop. The physical act of throwing a stapler was an instinctive retaliation to being slapped, not an unprovoked assault.
The penalty of dismissal was deemed too harsh and disproportionate. The Court affirmed the NLRC’s finding that a thirty-day suspension without pay was the commensurate disciplinary measure. Furthermore, the bank’s application for clearance was filed only on the same day as the termination, violating the rule requiring filing at least ten days prior, which creates a conclusive presumption that a dismissal without prior clearance is without just cause. Petitioner was ordered reinstated without loss of seniority rights and with back wages for three years.