G.R. No. L-56339 January 31, 1984
PHILIPPINES DAILY EXPRESS PUBLISHING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. BLAS F. OPLE, Minister of Labor and Employment; FRANCISCO L. ESTRELLA, Director, National Capital Region, Ministry of Labor; PHILIPPINES DAILY EXPRESS EMPLOYEES UNION (PDEEU) EDGARDO MARTIN and RAMON REYES, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Edgardo Martin, a color separator, and Ramon Reyes, Jr., a circulation field representative, were employees of the Philippines Daily Express Publishing Corporation. On April 9, 1979, Reyes, without a job order, gave Martin a transparency for color separation for Panday Magazine. Martin completed the work using company equipment and materials, and on April 28, Reyes gave Martin P200 as partial payment. The unauthorized work was reported to company management on May 4, 1979. On May 8, Martin returned the P200 to a company manager.
After an investigation, the company found the employees guilty of violating Item B(7) of its code, “Obtaining company owned materials/properties on fraudulent orders,” which prescribes dismissal for the first offense. The company placed them under preventive suspension and filed an application for clearance to terminate their employment. The employees and their union opposed, admitting the unauthorized work but arguing dismissal was too severe.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of employees Martin and Reyes was justified for their unauthorized use of company property for outside work.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that dismissal was not justified, but modified the penalty. The legal logic centered on the proper classification of the offense and the principle that the penalty must be commensurate with the transgression. The company charged the employees under Item B(7) for “fraudulent” obtaining of property. However, the Court, affirming the labor authorities’ findings, held the act was more accurately classified under Item B(3): “Using company materials, company property or company time to perform unauthorized work,” which prescribes a one-week suspension for a first offense.
The Court emphasized that while the act was improper, the circumstances mitigated its severity. Key mitigating factors included the immediate return of the payment upon discovery and the employees’ admission of the act. The Court applied the doctrine that in termination cases, the employer must prove not just a valid cause but also that the penalty of dismissal is proportionate. Here, the absence of fraudulent intent in obtaining materials (they used materials already accessible in their normal duties) and the restitution made dismissal too harsh a penalty under the principles of social justice and the constitutional mandate to afford protection to labor. Consequently, the Court modified the Minister of Labor’s order for reinstatement with backwages (minus one week’s pay) to reinstatement without backwages, effectively imposing the penalty of suspension without pay for the period of their preventive suspension and litigation.