Title
Phil. Aeolus Auto-Motive United Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 124617
Decision Date
Apr 28, 2000
A company nurse was illegally dismissed after alleging sexual harassment; the Supreme Court ruled her termination disproportionate, awarding back wages, damages, and separation pay.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 124617)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Employment
    • Petitioner Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corporation (PAAUC) is a corporation organized under Philippine laws; Francis Chua is its President.
    • Respondent Rosalinda C. Cortez was employed as a company nurse by PAAUC until her termination on November 7, 1994.
  • Alleged Infractions and Company Actions
    • On October 5, 1994, PAAUC issued a memorandum to Cortez requiring her to explain within 48 hours why disciplinary action should not be taken on three charges:
      • Throwing a stapler at Plant Manager William Chua and uttering invectives on August 2, 1994.
      • Losing P1,488.00 entrusted to her for transmittal on August 23, 1994.
      • Having a co-employee punch-in her time card on the morning of September 6, 1994, to falsely show attendance.
    • Cortez refused to receive the memorandum and did not timely submit an explanation.
    • While investigation was pending, she was placed under a 30-day preventive suspension from October 9 to November 7, 1994.
    • On October 20, 1994, another memorandum required Cortez to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken for allegedly failing to process ATM card applications for nine co-employees with Allied Banking Corporation.
    • Again, Cortez refused to receive the memorandum but a copy was sent to her by registered mail.
    • Cortez submitted a written explanation regarding the lost money and time card punching.
    • On November 3, 1994, a third memorandum informed her of termination effective November 7, 1994 on grounds of gross and habitual neglect of duties, serious misconduct, and fraud or willful breach of trust.
  • Legal Proceedings
    • On December 6, 1994, Cortez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits with the Labor Arbiter.
    • On July 10, 1995, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioners, finding the dismissal valid and legal, and dismissed claims for damages.
    • The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on February 15, 1996, ruling dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with back wages.
    • Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on March 28, 1996.
    • Petitioners filed this petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the NLRC decisions.
  • Charges Detailed in Termination Letter
    • August 2, 1994: gross disrespect to superior for throwing stapler and invectives.
    • August 23, 1994: loss of entrusted money of P1,488.00 not recovered.
    • September 6, 1994: instructing another employee to punch-in her time card while she was absent.
    • July 28, 1994 to September 24, 1994: failure to process ATM card applications and deposits for nine employees; deposits were delayed by about a month.
  • Respondent's Defense and Explanation
    • Regarding the first charge, Cortez alleged persistent sexual harassment and abusive advances by Plant Manager William Chua spanning four years, which she refused; later the plant manager harassed and threatened her with termination if she did not comply.
    • On the second charge, she claimed the money was handed to the responsible company personnel for transmittal as evidenced by a signed receipt.
    • On the third charge, she admitted asking a co-employee to punch her time card because she was running a company officer's errand with permission from Plant Manager Chua, and that the practice was apparently tolerated.
    • On the fourth charge, she denied knowledge and responsibility for processing ATM cards as it was not part of her duties as a nurse.

Issues:

  • Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in declaring the dismissal of Rosalinda C. Cortez illegal.
  • Whether Rosalinda C. Cortez is entitled to moral and exemplary damages for the circumstances surrounding her dismissal.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.