Case Digest (G.R. No. 51484)
Facts:
The case involves Avelino Bachiller as the petitioner against the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Hon. M. Lucas in his capacity as Labor Arbiter, and Candyman, Incorporated as the respondents. The events leading to the case began on August 20, 1969, when Bachiller was employed by Candyman, Incorporated as a machine operator. On April 2, 1977, he was caught sleeping on the job by his supervisor, which led to charges of sleeping during working hours and disrespect towards a superior. When Bachiller attempted to protest the charges, he was further accused of being disrespectful. The incident was escalated to the company manager, who referred the matter to the legal officer. The legal officer proposed that Bachiller sign a promissory note agreeing not to repeat the offense, which he rejected, insisting on his innocence. Consequently, the company placed him under preventive suspension, which eventually led to his termination. On April 25, 1977, Candyman, Incorporated f...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 51484)
Facts:
Employment and Incident Leading to Dismissal:
- Petitioner Avelino Bachiller was employed by respondent Candyman, Incorporated as a machine operator on August 20, 1969.
- On April 2, 1977, petitioner was caught sleeping by his supervisor while on duty. He was charged with sleeping on the job and disrespect towards his supervisor when he protested.
- The incident was reported to the manager, who referred it to the Company's legal officer. The legal officer proposed that petitioner sign a promissory note to avoid repeating the offense, but petitioner refused, maintaining his innocence.
- As a result, the company placed petitioner under preventive suspension, leading to his termination.
Application for Clearance and Complaint:
- On April 25, 1977, the Company filed an application for clearance to terminate petitioner’s services, citing sleeping during working hours and disrespect towards a superior as grounds.
- Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on August 12, 1977, alleging that the dismissal was without just cause and that the required 10-day prior clearance was not complied with.
- The Labor Arbiter ruled that dismissal was too severe a penalty and ordered petitioner’s reinstatement without backwages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed petitioner’s appeal.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- Petitioner contended that his termination was illegal due to the lack of prior clearance and that the application for clearance failed to state he was under preventive suspension, as required by the Labor Code.
- He argued that if the Company’s claim that he abandoned his job were true, "abandonment" should have been included as a ground for termination in the clearance application.
- Petitioner was reinstated on June 15, 1978, but he claimed entitlement to backwages, citing the Labor Code provision that preventive suspension before filing the application should be considered workdays and paid accordingly.
Issue:
- Whether the Labor Arbiter’s decision dated April 12, 1978, which did not award backwages, was legal.
- Whether the NLRC’s resolution dated August 22, 1979, dismissing petitioner’s appeal, was lawful.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner Avelino Bachiller. The Court set aside the NLRC’s resolution dated May 28, 1979, and modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision dated April 12, 1978. The Court ordered respondent Candyman, Incorporated to pay petitioner backwages for four months, computed from the date of his dismissal (April 25, 1977) up to his reinstatement (June 15, 1978). The decision was immediately executory.
Ratio:
Illegal Dismissal Due to Lack of Prior Clearance:
- The Company’s failure to secure the requisite prior clearance from the Ministry of Labor rendered petitioner’s dismissal illegal. The dismissal was unjustified, arbitrary, and without just cause.
- The Court emphasized that while dismissal is a management prerogative, it must be exercised without abuse of discretion, as it affects the employee’s livelihood.
Severity of Penalty:
- The Court agreed with the Labor Arbiter that dismissal was too severe a penalty for the offense committed. Suspension was deemed sufficient, considering petitioner’s years of service with the Company.
- However, the Court noted that the Company failed to temper its disciplinary actions with fairness and equity.
Entitlement to Backwages:
- Petitioner was entitled to backwages as compensation for the wages he lost due to his illegal dismissal. The Court cited the Labor Code provision that preventive suspension before filing the application for clearance should be considered workdays and paid accordingly.
- The obligation of the employer is to pay the illegally dismissed employee the full amount of salaries or wages, plus all other benefits he would have been entitled to during the period of dismissal.
Modification of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision:
- The Court modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision by awarding backwages for four months, considering the circumstances of the case.