CASE DIGEST
Universal Robina Corp.
v. Maglalang
G.R. No. 255864, [July 6, 2022]
SEOCND, LOPEZ, M.
Illegal Dismissal; qualified theft; Serious misconduct
The penalty of dismissal for an employee's misconduct must be proportionate to the offense committed. The severity of the penalty imposed should be reasonable and justified based on the circumstances of the case, including the employee's length of service, previous record, the value of the property involved, and the effect on the employer's operations. Dismissal should be warranted only when the employee's misconduct is serious, directly related to their duties, and performed with wrongful intent.
Roberto, employed as a machine operator at Universal Robina Corporation (URC) since November 17, 1997, encountered an incident on March 26, 2015. While cleaning his motorcycle seat in the company parking lot with alcohol provided by the company, he inadvertently brought a bottle of ethyl alcohol into his bag. Upon inspection by a security guard, Roberto realized his mistake and disposed of the bottle, which was then found to belong to the company. Consequently, he was criminally charged with qualified theft, detained for five days, and placed under preventive suspension. URC issued a Notice to Explain, followed by a Notice of Termination, alleging serious misconduct. Roberto's explanations were rejected, leading to his dismissal on May 14, 2015. Despite attempts at reconciliation, URC refused reinstatement. Roberto's subsequent illegal dismissal case was initially dismissed by the Labor Arbiter, upheld by the NLRC, but reversed by the CA on September 15, 2020.
Whether Roberto's dismissal from URC
constitutes illegal termination and if he is entitled to reinstatement,
backwages, separation pay, and attorney's fees.
YES. The Supreme Court, after considering the
circumstances, ruled in favor of Roberto, deeming his dismissal illegal. While
employers have the right to dismiss employees for serious misconduct, such
actions must be justified and proportionate to the offense. Roberto's 18-year
tenure, clean record, and the minimal value of the item in question weighed
against the severity of the penalty imposed. URC's decision to terminate him
was deemed disproportionate, especially considering Roberto's lack of a
position of trust and confidence. The compromise agreement between the parties
concerning the criminal case did not preclude Roberto from seeking redress for
his employment-related grievances. Thus, the CA's decision granting separation
pay in lieu of reinstatement was upheld, although backwages and attorney's fees
were denied due to URC's good faith in dismissing Roberto. The case was
remanded to the Labor Arbiter for computation of the separation pay owed to
Roberto.
No comments:
Post a Comment