G.R. No. 233395 - Sibayan vs. Alda

Parties and procedural posture
Carmencita G. Visperas filed a Petition for review on Certiorari of the Decision of respondent Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Labor in NLRC Case No. RB-IV-12151-77, entitled Carmencita G. Visperas vs. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank.
Respondent Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (respondent Bank) sought clearance to dismiss petitioner.
The petition challenged a Decision of Deputy Minister Amado G. Inciong dated March 14, 1979.

Incident at the respondent bank (Mandaluyong Branch)
On February 19, 1977, an incident occurred on the second floor premises of Banco Filipino at its Mandaluyong Branch between two tellers:

Around 11:00 a.m. on February 19, 1977, Orlindo Bartolome, a bank employee, requested petitioner to prepare a debit memo for a dollar check received on February 14, 1977.
Petitioner normally prepared the debit memo on the same day of the transaction, pursuant to bank practice.
Petitioner prepared the debit memo as requested.
Petitioner had the debit memo cleared by Mrs. Ofelia Cruz, a bank supervisor, while Mrs. Cruz was having lunch with Ramirez and two other employees.
Petitioner inquired who the teller was who failed to prepare the debit memo.
Ramirez admitted that he had prepared a debit memo but left it unposted because the bank was operating off-line and he left the debit memo with a bookkeeper in the afternoon shift, which remained unposted.
Petitioner commented “tarantado.”
In affidavits executed on:

petitioner and Ramirez admitted that the comment was made in a joking manner.

After the comment, petitioner returned to work and Ramirez finished his meal hurriedly.
About thirty minutes later, Ramirez approached petitioner and told her he resented her revealing his mistakes and her use of the word “tarantado” in front of their supervisor.
Petitioner did not apologize, although she stated the word was her ordinary expression.
Other employees also made comments and poked fun at the incident.
Mrs. Cruz admonished them with “Pssst tama na yan.”
The employees momentarily stopped.
Ramirez then sat opposite petitioner with dagger looks, which incensed petitioner.
Petitioner remarked “Alam ko matapang ka mangyari security guard ka dati.”
Ramirez considered the remark an insult.
Ramirez slapped petitioner on the right side of her head, hitting her right ear and eyeglasses.
Petitioner retaliated by throwing a stapler, which did not hit Ramirez.
Before Ramirez could slap her again, cooler heads intervened.
After the incident, Mr. Pedrito Ledesma, the branch manager, required written explanations from petitioner and Ramirez, and also required statements from other employees who witnessed the incident.
After consultation with Mrs. Cruz, Ledesma suggested that petitioner and Ramirez resign.
Ramirez, who was on probationary status, resigned.
Petitioner, a regular employee since January 18, 1974, did not resign.

Termination and clearance to dismiss
Petitioner received a letter of termination effective March 16, 1977, for “violation of company rules and regulations on office relationship.”
The letter was accompanied by a copy of the Bank’s application for clearance to dismiss, filed on March 15, 1977 with the Regional Office, Ministry of Labor.
Petitioner filed an Opposition to the application for clearance to dismiss.

Upholding the right of respondent Bank to terminate petitioner for violation of company rules and regulations on office relationship; and
Ordering respondent Bank to pay one-half-month salary for every year of petitioner’s service as severance pay, because the clearance application was not filed at least ten days prior to the intended date of dismissal.

NLRC ruling
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter.
The NLRC held that the acts complained of did not justify termination.
The NLRC directed a thirty-day suspension without pay as the disciplinary measure.
The NLRC ordered petitioner’s reinstatement to her previous position without loss of seniority rights.
The NLRC ordered payment of back salaries beginning thirty days after she was out of work until the date of actual reinstatement.

Whether petitioner’s acts justified termination under the Bank’s rules on office relationship
Whether petitioner wilfully refused to heed the supervisor’s admonition “Pssst tama na yan” within the meaning of the rule on willful refusal.
Whether petitioner’s remark “Alam ko matapang ka mangyari security guard ka dati” constituted an insult or an act inconsistent with proper subordination sufficient to warrant dismissal.
Whether petitioner’s use of the word “tarantado” constituted prohibited insulting or use of foul language towards a fellow staff member, considering petitioner’s claim that it was a joke and her usual expression, and Ramirez’s claim as to how he took it.
Whether the incident’s elements of shouting and physical violence supported dismissal as the appropriate penalty.

Whether the penalty imposed by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed by Deputy Minister was appropriate in light of circumstances
Whether dismissal was too severe a penalty and whether a lesser penalty, such as the NLRC’s thirty-day suspension without pay, was commensurate.