Case Summary (G.R. No. 97239)
Key Dates
February 6, 1987 — The stabbing death of Reynaldo Ortega.
September 15, 1987 — Micosa formally accused of homicide.
January 9–23, 1990 — IRRI disapproved Micosa’s special separation application; trial court rendered conviction January 23, 1990.
February 8, 1990 — IRRI Director General confirmed Micosa’s appointment as regular core employee.
March–May 1990 — IRRI urged resignation and later terminated employment effective May 25, 1990.
May 29, 1990 — Micosa filed an illegal dismissal complaint.
August 21, 1990 — Labor Arbiter ordered reinstatement with backwages.
January 31, 1991 — NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision with modification.
May 12, 1993 — Supreme Court decision dismissing the petition for certiorari.
Factual Background
Micosa, an IRRI laborer, stabbed and killed Reynaldo Ortega in a beer house outside IRRI premises; the incident occurred after hours and involved an altercation in which the victim allegedly assaulted and humiliated Micosa. The trial court convicted Micosa of homicide but found mitigating circumstances— incomplete self-defense and voluntary surrender—and no aggravating circumstances. Micosa applied for and was granted probation. During the criminal proceedings and after conviction, IRRI took mixed positions: initially rejecting special separation and later confirming his regular employment status, but subsequently urging resignation and eventually terminating his employment citing a personnel rule that permits dismissal for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.
Procedural History
After dismissal effective May 25, 1990, Micosa filed for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found the termination illegal and ordered reinstatement with full backwages and attorney’s fees (P5,000). The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision but deleted the attorney’s fees award. IRRI filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising questions about NLRC’s authority and the applicability of IRRI’s personnel rule as a ground for dismissal.
Issues Presented
- Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in finding that IRRI could not prescribe dismissal grounds beyond those enumerated in Article 282 of the Labor Code.
- Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in holding that IRRI’s personnel manual could not be applied to dismiss Micosa on the sole ground that his homicide conviction constituted moral turpitude.
Petitioner’s Contentions
IRRI asserted the prerogative to set internal rules and disciplinary standards binding on employees through its personnel manual, including dismissal for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. IRRI argued that homicide necessarily involves moral turpitude because killing is inherently immoral and against justice, and that maintaining a high standard of conduct was necessary given IRRI’s international character and obligations to the host country.
Respondent’s Position and Relevant Facts Supporting It
Micosa relied on the guarantee by IRRI’s Director General that, as a regular core employee, he could only be dismissed for just causes as defined in the Labor Code. The homicide occurred off-premises against a non-IRRI employee, was found by the trial court to involve mitigating circumstances, and resulted in probation. IRRI’s own internal communications (including confirmation of his appointment and Grievance Committee recommendation) indicated that IRRI previously considered him fit for continued employment.
Labor Arbiter and NLRC Findings
The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal illegal and ordered reinstatement with full backwages and attorney’s fees. The NLRC affirmed the finding of illegal dismissal but deleted the attorney’s fees award. The core reasoning was that Article 282 of the Labor Code enumerates just causes for termination and does not include conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude as a general ground for dismissal, especially where the offense was not related to employment or directed against the employer.
Legal Analysis on Just Causes under Article 282
Article 282 enumerates just causes for termination and is the exclusive statutory framework for justifiable dismissal under the Labor Code. The Court emphasized that conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is not among those enumerated causes. Attempts to analogize such conviction to Article 282(c) (fraud or willful breach of trust related to the performance of duty) or Article 282(d) (commission of a crime against the person of the employer or a representative) fail because those provisions require a nexus to the employee’s work or to the employer. The Court held that dismissal grounds by analogy must have elements substantially similar to the enumerated causes; in this case, the homicide was unrelated to IRRI and occurred outside the scope of employment.
Analysis on Moral Turpitude and Homicide
The Court addressed whether homicide per se always involves moral turpitude. Citing precedents, moral turpitude is defined as conduct contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals—acts of baseness, vileness, or depravity—and its presence in a particular conviction is subject to judicial determination based on surrounding circumstances. The Court recognized that not every criminal conviction or every act mala in se necessarily involves moral turpitude; whether moral turpitude exists is often a question of fact. In Micosa’s case, mitigating circumstances (incomplete self-defense and voluntary surrender), absence of aggravating circumstances, unblemished service record, the Grievance Committee’s favorable recommendation, the trial court’s grant of probation, and IRRI’s own letters of continu
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 97239)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for certiorari to determine whether a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for dismissal from employment and whether a conviction of homicide involves moral turpitude.
- Case reached the Supreme Court following:
- Labor Arbiter Numeriano D. Villena found Micosa’s termination illegal and ordered reinstatement with full backwages and attorney’s fees (August 21, 1990).
- The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision but deleted the award of attorney’s fees in a resolution dated January 31, 1991.
- IRRI filed the present petition raising specific issues of grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.
- The Supreme Court, Second Division (Justice Nocon writing), dismissed the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the NLRC’s ruling.
Facts of the Case
- International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) hired respondent Nestor B. Micosa in 1977 as a laborer; he became bound by IRRI’s Employment Policy and Regulations.
- IRRI’s Miscellaneous Provisions included: “C. Conviction and Previous Separation … 2. An employer who has been convicted of a (sic) criminal offense involving moral turpitude may be dismissed from the service.”
- On February 6, 1987, Micosa stabbed to death Reynaldo Ortega inside a beer house in Los Baños, Laguna.
- On September 15, 1987, Micosa was accused of homicide.
- During the pendency of the criminal case, Micosa applied for IRRI’s Special Separation Program; Director General Klaus L. Lampe disapproved the application on January 9, 1990, expressing desire to retain Micosa’s skills.
- The trial court found Micosa guilty of homicide on January 23, 1990, but appreciated mitigating circumstances of incomplete self-defense and voluntary surrender, and found no aggravating circumstances.
- Micosa applied for suspension of sentence under the Probation Law and was later granted probation.
- On February 8, 1990, IRRI’s Director General wrote confirming Micosa’s appointment as a regular core employee “who may not be terminated except for justifiable causes as defined by the pertinent provisions of the Philippine Labor Code.”
- On March 30, 1990, IRRI’s Human Resource Development Head, J.K. Pascual, urged Micosa to resign due to his conviction for homicide.
- On April 4, 1990, Laguna Parole and Probation Office No. II notified IRRI that Micosa’s application for probation was meritorious and that he possessed “desirable social antecedents in his life.”
- On April 6, 1990, Micosa informed Pascual he would not resign.
- On April 22, 1990, Pascual insisted the homicide conviction involved moral turpitude and charged Micosa under the Institute’s Personnel Manual (Section I-AA, Par VII, C-2).
- On April 27, 1990, Micosa explained the killing arose from his self-defense against unlawful aggression and that he opted not to appeal to avail of probation benefits.
- On May 7, 1990, IRRI’s Grievance Committee recommended Micosa’s continued employment.
- On May 21, 1990, Pascual issued notice terminating Micosa’s employment effective May 25, 1990.
- On May 29, 1990, Micosa filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in finding that IRRI had no right or authority to prescribe dismissal causes not enumerated in Article 282 of the Labor Code.
- Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding there was no basis to apply IRRI’s personnel manual in dismissing Micosa solely on the ground that his conviction for homicide constituted moral turpitude.
Contentions of Petitioner (IRRI)
- IRRI contended it had the prerogative to issue rules and regulations, including those on employee discipline, and that employees are bound by its personnel manual.
- IRRI asserted that a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a valid ground for dismissal under its Miscellaneous Provisions.
- IRRI maintained that homicide is a crime involving moral turpitude and thus justified dismissal.
- IRRI argued its interest to maintain a high standard and to forestall internal problems and potential disturbances due to its status as an international organization justified dismissal.
- IRRI characterized some of its communications (letters) to Micosa as pro forma and denied that these demonstrated an intention to retain him.
Contentions and Defenses of Respondent (Micosa) and Findings Below
- Micosa asserted the homicide arose from self-defense; sought probation and did not appeal conviction to avail probation.
- The Labor Arbiter found termination illegal, ordering reinstatement with full backwages and awarding attorney’s fees.
- The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision but deleted the award of attorney’s fees.
- Fact findings favorable to Micosa included: unblemished service record; absence of prior similar incidents; mitigating circumstances (incomplete self-defense, voluntary surrender); and grant of probation as evidence of favorable evaluation of character and low risk of reoffense.
- IRRI’s Grievance Committee recommended retention of Micosa despite conviction.