A.M. No. P-16-3471 - Office of the Court Administrator vs. Pedrina

Eugenia C. Credo was employed by National Service Corporation (NASECO), which provides security and janitorial services to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and related agencies.
Credo started as a lady guard on July 18, 1975, and was promoted over the years to Clerk Typist, Personnel Clerk, and ultimately Chief of Property and Records by March 10, 1980.

Before November 7, 1983, Credo was charged with non-compliance to a memorandum by Sisinio S. Lloren regarding entry procedures in the Statement of Billings Adjustment.
The charges stated that Credo failed to place required corrections, was called by Lloren and behaved disrespectfully by shouting and making scandalous remarks in front of co-employees.
On November 7, 1983, Credo was called by Arturo L. Perez, Acting General Manager of NASECO, for explanation before the Committee on Personnel Affairs.
On the same day, Credo was placed on a 15-day forced leave starting November 8, 1983.

Credo filed a complaint on November 18, 1983, before the Arbitration Branch, Ministry of Labor and Employment challenging the forced leave as without due process.
On November 22, 1983, the Committee on Personnel Affairs reviewed Credo’s past acts of misconduct and resolved that she committed offenses related to discourtesy, use of disrespectful language, and failure to comply with lawful orders.
The Committee recommended Credo’s termination with forfeiture of benefits due to repeated misconduct and “maximum tolerance point” reached.
On December 1, 1983, Credo was called again to Perez’s office, charges were presented, and due to failure to satisfactorily explain, she was issued a Notice of Termination dated November 24, 1983, effective December 1, 1983.

Credo filed supplemental complaint for illegal dismissal on December 6, 1983, alleging no just cause and lack of opportunity to be heard.
Labor Arbiter dismissed Credo’s complaint but ordered NASECO to pay separation pay equivalent to half a month’s pay per year of service.
Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On November 28, 1984, NLRC ordered Credo’s reinstatement with six months backwages and dismissed her claims for attorney’s fees, moral and exemplary damages.
Motions for reconsideration were denied by NLRC on January 16, 1985.
Both parties filed special civil actions for certiorari before the Supreme Court seeking review of the NLRC’s decision and resolution.

Whether NASECO complied with the procedural requirements for lawful dismissal under the Labor Code and related guidelines.
Whether Credo’s dismissal was supported by a valid or authorized cause.
Whether accused acts of misconduct, particularly discourtesy and insubordination, were sufficiently proven and whether prior condonation affected such charges.
Whether the NLRC had jurisdiction over the dispute given NASECO’s status as a government-owned or controlled corporation.
Whether Credo is entitled to reinstatement, backwages, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.