Title
Paez vs. Marinduque Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 211185
Decision Date
Dec 9, 2020
Employee dismissed after 21 years for alleged irregularities in energizing cell sites; Supreme Court ruled termination illegal, citing lack of willful disobedience, fraud, or trust-based role, deeming dismissal disproportionate.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 183543)

Employment Background and Allegations of Misconduct

Jimmy Paez was employed by MARELCO on March 16, 1984, and held the position of Sub-Office Chief at the time of his alleged illegal termination on March 21, 2005. In 2004, MARELCO discovered irregular activities concerning the Smart and Globe Projects, including unauthorized tapping of cell sites to consumer service connections. An Ad-hoc Committee was established to investigate, and Paez was invited to provide testimony but failed to do so. Consequently, MARELCO placed him under floating status and later terminated his employment, citing concealment of information potentially indicative of collusion or conspiracy.

Procedural History and Decisions

Following his termination, Paez appealed the decision, asserting that he had no involvement in the alleged irregularities and that his firing was unjust. The Labor Arbiter dismissed Paez’s complaint for lack of merit. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) later reversed this decision, ruling that his dismissal was illegal, citing that his failure to identify a superior did not constitute fraud or dishonesty.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On February 25, 2013, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the NLRC's ruling, affirming the legality of Paez's dismissal. The CA argued that Paez's actions constituted a failure to ensure proper procedure was followed, thereby breaching the trust MARELCO placed in him. It awarded backwages and separation pay to some other employees but excluded Paez from such benefits based on its determination of valid grounds for his termination.

Arguments Presented in the Petition

Paez contended that the CA’s decision was erroneous. He claimed that his dismissal was based solely on his failure to name a superior and did not amount to willful disobedience or a breach of trust. He further argued that even if there was an infraction, the penalty of dismissal was excessive considering his 21 years of service without prior incidents of misconduct.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision

The Supreme Court found merit in Paez's petition, asserting that the only basis for his dismissal was his failure to identify the individual responsible for the instructions concerning the Globe projects, and such failure did not constitute sufficient grounds for termination under Article 297 of the Labor Code. In distinguishing willful disobedience from minor infractions, the Court emphasized the absence of significant wrongdoing or harm to MARELCO's interests arising from

...continue reading

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