G.R. No. 168421 - Pasamba vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Jennifer Fabello Pasamba was hired by St. Luke’s Medical Center (SLMC) on July 3, 2001, as a staff nurse on a probationary status for a maximum period of six months.
Upon hiring, petitioner attended an orientation seminar titled “Induction to St. Luke’s Family” where the company rules—including the SLMC Code of Discipline—were explained and demonstrated by documented evidence (Attendance Sheet, evaluation form, and seminar Certification).

On October 15, 2001, Dr. Pacita J. M. Lopez, Assistant Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics, filed a formal complaint against the petitioner alleging that she uttered slanderous remarks.
The complaint was accompanied by a letter dated October 10, 2001, written by Hazel S. Cabales (the mother of a patient), which recounted a specific incident including the disparaging statement targeting Dr. Lopez.
The purported statement suggested that Dr. Lopez was selected despite being “old” and implied misconduct regarding patient care.

SLMC initiated its own inquiry by issuing a memorandum on October 16, 2001, requiring the petitioner to respond in writing to the slander charge.
The petitioner, through her counsel, submitted a Letter dated October 18, 2001 denying the allegation and alleging that Cabales had concocted the story due to her having been barred from the Intermediate Maternity Care Unit (IMCU).
A company hearing was subsequently held on October 19, 2001, wherein the petitioner was allowed to confront Cabales, who was present at the hearing, and reiterate that she had no further explanation beyond her previous letter.
A further memorandum dated October 25, 2001, directed the petitioner to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against her for violating Rule IV, Article 2 of the SLMC Code of Discipline covering libelous and slanderous utterances.
In response, the petitioner sent another Letter on October 29, 2001, maintaining her earlier explanation while demanding a reinvestigation of the incident.
On November 7, 2001, SLMC notified the petitioner via letter that after an investigation she was found guilty of uttering slanderous and derogatory remarks against Dr. Lopez; as a result, her employment was terminated.

On December 21, 2001, the petitioner filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter.
In her Position Paper, she attached statements from co-employees and former patients (including those of Veronica A. Ramos, Mary Jean Parcon, Evengeline Aguilan Cambri, Nayma Magallanes, and Charito Cruz) which, according to her, refuted the allegations of slander.
SLMC, in support of its action, presented the Employment Contract restoring the petitioner’s probationary status, copies of the seminar Attendance Sheet, evaluation form, and Certification evidencing that she had been informed of the applicable standards and rules.
The Labor Arbiter, on April 24, 2002, dismissed the petitioner’s complaint for illegal dismissal, finding that the evidence supported the conclusion that the petitioner had indeed uttered the slanderous remarks.

The petitioner’s appeal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) resulted in a Resolution dated May 15, 2003, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioner was denied by NLRC in a Resolution dated August 12, 2003.
The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated April 18, 2005, confirmed the NLRC Resolution, ruling that dismissal was justified because the petitioner’s conduct amounted to a breach of the standards necessary for her regularization as a staff nurse.

Whether the petitioner’s dismissal was valid given that her allegedly slanderous remarks were not directly related to the performance of her duties as a staff nurse.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the dismissal on the ground that the offense of slanderous utterances—although, as per petitioner’s contention, subject to only a penalty of thirty days suspension under the company rules—could warrant termination.
Whether the dismissal, being directed at a probationary employee, was consistent with the provisions of Article 281 of the Labor Code, thereby allowing termination for failing to meet reasonable standards as communicated by the employer.