Case Digest (G.R. No. 100878)
Facts:
The case involves Estrellita Aguilar as the petitioner and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Wack Wack Golf and Country Club, and Col. Perfecto V. Eugenio as the respondents. The events leading to the case began when Aguilar, who had been employed by the Wack Wack Golf and Country Club for 23 years, was dismissed from her position as an Accounting Clerk on May 12, 1988. Her dismissal was based on allegations of misconduct, specifically for signing restaurant and bar bills on behalf of club members without authorization. The club had been facing financial difficulties and had implemented a patronage fee of P200.00 per member to mitigate losses. Despite being informed of the club's rules prohibiting non-members from signing chits for members, Aguilar continued to do so, leading to her dismissal. Following her termination, Aguilar filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC on August 16, 1988. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor on March 10, 1989, de...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 100878)
Facts:
Employment Background:
- Petitioner Estrellita Aguilar was employed by Wack Wack Golf and Country Club (CLUB) for 23 years, holding the position of Accounting Clerk with a monthly salary of P3,285.00.
- Col. Perfecto Eugenio served as the General Manager of the CLUB.
Financial Issues of the CLUB:
- Prior to August 1, 1986, the CLUB incurred continuous losses in its restaurant and bar operations.
- To address this, the CLUB imposed a patronage fee of P200.00 per member starting August 1, 1986, under a Board Resolution dated June 25, 1986. Members who did not use the restaurant and bar services were charged P200.00 monthly.
Petitioner’s Misconduct:
- On several occasions, petitioner ordered and consumed food from the CLUB restaurant/bar and charged them against the patronage fees of CLUB members Jose Ma. Ozamis, Martin Cepeda, Roberto Reverente, and Alex Yu Gonzales, without the CLUB management’s knowledge or consent.
- On January 29, 1988, the CLUB sent a written notice of charges against petitioner, but she refused to receive it.
- Petitioner executed a written statement on January 31, 1988, explaining her side. Despite being reminded during the investigation that she was not allowed to sign chits chargeable to members’ patronage fees, she continued to do so.
Dismissal and Legal Proceedings:
- On May 10, 1988, petitioner was dismissed for violating House Rule (A), Section 15(a); House Rule (B), Section 7, as amended; and for serious misconduct and breach of trust.
- On August 16, 1988, petitioner filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal before the NLRC-NCR.
- The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering her reinstatement with full backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
- The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, awarding petitioner P9,000.00 as financial assistance instead.
Issue:
- Whether petitioner violated company rules and regulations by signing chits for and on behalf of CLUB members.
- Whether petitioner’s dismissal was valid under Article 282 of the Labor Code for serious misconduct and willful disobedience.
- Whether the award of financial assistance to petitioner was justified.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s decision with the modification that the award of financial assistance be deleted. The Court held that:
- Petitioner violated the CLUB’s rules by signing chits for and on behalf of members, despite being a non-member and not authorized to do so under the rules.
- Petitioner’s actions constituted serious misconduct and willful disobedience, justifying her dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
- Financial assistance is not warranted in cases of serious misconduct, as it would undermine the employer’s right to enforce discipline.
Ratio:
Applicability of House Rules:
- House Rule (A), Section 15(a) and House Rule (B), Section 7 explicitly prohibit non-members from signing chits for and on behalf of members. Petitioner, as an employee and non-member, was bound by these rules.
- Petitioner’s claim that the rules did not apply to her as an employee was unfounded, as the rules clearly applied to all non-members.
Serious Misconduct and Willful Disobedience:
- Petitioner’s continued signing of chits after being investigated and reminded of the rules demonstrated a willful and perverse attitude, satisfying the requisites for willful disobedience under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
- The CLUB’s rules were reasonable, lawful, and made known to petitioner, and her actions pertained to her duties as an employee.
No Financial Assistance for Serious Misconduct:
- Separation pay or financial assistance is not justified in cases of serious misconduct, as it would condone the employee’s wrongful actions and undermine the employer’s disciplinary authority.
- The Court cited Del Monte Phils., Inc. vs. NLRC, which held that financial assistance is only warranted in cases not involving serious misconduct or moral turpitude.