Title
Visperas vs. Inciong
Case
G.R. No. L-51299
Decision Date
Dec 29, 1982
A 1977 workplace altercation between bank tellers escalated, leading to termination. The Supreme Court ruled dismissal too severe, ordering reinstatement and back wages due to procedural lapses and disproportionate penalty.
bank employee
dismissal
severe
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-51299)

Incident and Immediate Circumstances

On February 19, 1977, an incident occurred at the second-floor premises of the bank between petitioner and Ramirez. Around 11:00 a.m., Orlindo Bartolome asked petitioner to prepare a debit memo for a dollar check received five days earlier. Under normal bank practice, the memo should have been prepared on the transaction date. Petitioner prepared the debit memo as requested and had it cleared by Mrs. Ofelia Cruz, who was lunching with Ramirez and two other employees.

Petitioner then inquired who the teller was who had failed to prepare the debit memo. Ramirez admitted that a debit memo had been prepared but had been left unposted because the bank was operating off-line; he claimed he left it with a bookkeeper in the afternoon shift and it remained unposted. Petitioner reacted by saying “tarantado.” Later affidavits showed that petitioner and Ramirez admitted the comment was made in a joking manner.

After petitioner returned to her work and Ramirez finished his meal, Ramirez approached petitioner’s desk and stated he resented her having revealed his mistake and using the word “tarantado” in front of their supervisor. Petitioner did not apologize. She claimed the word was her ordinary expression. Other employees also made remarks that poked fun at the incident. Mrs. Cruz admonished everyone, saying “Pssst tama na yan,” and the employees momentarily stopped. Ramirez, however, sat opposite petitioner and stared at her with dagger looks.

This incensed petitioner, who then remarked: “Alam ko matapang ka mangyari security guard ka dati.” Ramirez considered that statement an insult. He slapped petitioner on the right side of her head, hitting her right ear and her eyeglasses. Petitioner retaliated by throwing a stapler, but it did not hit Ramirez. Cooler heads intervened before any further physical confrontation occurred.

Administrative Demand for Explanations and Termination

After the incident, Mr. Pedrito Ledesma, the branch manager, required petitioner and Ramirez to submit written explanations. Witnesses and other employees were also asked to submit statements. After consulting with Mrs. Cruz, Ledesma called petitioner and Ramirez and suggested they resign.

Ramirez, who was on probationary status, resigned. Petitioner, a regular employee since January 18, 1974, did not. The bank issued petitioner a letter of termination effective March 16, 1977, citing “violation of company rules and regulations on office relationship.” The termination was accompanied by a copy of the bank’s application for clearance to dismiss, which the bank filed with the Regional Office on March 15, 1977, the same period when petitioner received the termination letter.

Petitioner filed an Opposition to the clearance application.

Labor Arbiter’s Ruling

On July 25, 1977, Labor Arbiter Ruben Aquino upheld the bank’s right to terminate on the ground that petitioner had violated company rules on office relationship. However, the Labor Arbiter ruled that the clearance application had not been filed at least ten days before the intended dismissal. Consequently, the Labor Arbiter ordered the bank to pay petitioner one-half-month salary for every year of service as severance pay.

NLRC Reversal

On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter. It found that the acts complained of did not justify petitioner’s termination. Instead, the NLRC imposed a lesser penalty: a thirty-day suspension without pay as disciplinary action. It further ordered petitioner’s reinstatement to her previous position without loss of seniority rights and awarded back salaries from thirty days after she was out of work until the date of her actual reinstatement.

Deputy Minister’s Reversal and Denial of Motion

The bank appealed to the Office of the Minister of Labor. On March 14, 1979, Deputy Minister Amado G. Inciong reversed the NLRC decision. He reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision granting the bank’s clearance application to terminate petitioner. Petitioner received the Deputy Minister’s decision on March 21, 1979 and moved for reconsideration on March 30, 1979. The Deputy Minister denied the motion, and petitioner received the denial on July 20, 1979. Petitioner then filed the present Petition for review on Certiorari on August 27, 1979.

The Parties’ Positions and the Issues for Resolution

The primary issues for the Court were whether petitioner’s conduct justified the harsh penalty of dismissal under the bank’s rules on office relationship, and whether the clearance to dismiss complied with the timing requirement under the implementing regulations such that dismissal could be presumed to have been without just cause if the requirement was not satisfied.

The bank’s theory, as reflected in the termination and the clearance application, was that petitioner violated rules against refusing orders, shouting, physical violence, and insults or foul language directed at officers, supervisors, staff, clients, and depositors. The bank specifically relied on the alleged “willful refusal” to heed the supervisor’s admonition and treated petitioner’s subsequent remark and use of the word “tarantado” as insulting or foul language. It also treated the incident as sufficiently grave to warrant termination.

Petitioner, in turn, contended that her statements were not a “willful refusal” of a supervisor’s instruction. She argued that her remark was a reaction to an annoying circumstance and that the “tarantado” remark was made jokingly and was her ordinary expression.

Bank Rules Applied to the Incident

The Court reviewed the relevant bank rules. These provided that willful refusal to carry out official verbal or written orders or instructions of supervisors constituted grounds for dismissal. The rules also declared that shouting and physical violence were never justifiable and would be subject to disciplinary action. Finally, the rules stated that any disrespect, discourtesy, insult, or use of foul language toward clients, depositors, or any officer, supervisor, or staff member was sufficient ground for dismissal.

As to the alleged “willful refusal,” the Court identified the supervisor’s admonition as Mrs. Cruz’s statement: “Pssst tama na yan.” The Court held that petitioner’s remark uttered thereafter—“Alam ko matapang ka mangyari security guard ka dati”—was not a “willful refusal” to heed an order to stop talking. The remark was treated as merely a reaction by petitioner to Ramirez’s visibly angry presence in front of her desk, and not as a wrongful and perverse mental attitude rendering her act inconsistent with proper subordination.

The Court explained that after the remark, Ramirez interpreted petitioner’s statement as belittling his humble background, which prompted him to slap petitioner. The Court also considered petitioner’s act of throwing the stapler, which petitioner denied, as a retaliation for the physical violence and as an assertion of self-respect, rather than as a separate act that would automatically justify dismissal.

Regarding the word “tarantado,” the bank alleged that petitioner’s use of it violated the rule against insulting or using foul language toward a fellow staff member. The Court emphasized that petitioner stated in her affidavit that she meant the word only as a joke and that it was her usual expression. Ramirez’s affidavit similarly showed that he took the remark as a joke at first but later resented it.

The Court further took into account the bank’s own rules on penalty implementation, which required that the bank recognize past performance, job dedication, and proven loyalty when imposing penalties. The Court found that petitioner had served the bank for three years with apparently good record. Two months before the incident, she was promoted from junior teller to regular teller. She also rendered the most overtime work among tellers and received an award for excellence in attendance. The Court concluded that continuing her service would not be inimical to the bank’s interest. It added that the incident, in a way, revealed dedication to duty, since petitioner called attention to an error to avoid repetition.

Severity of Penalty and Reliance on Mercury Drug

The Court found that dismissal was excessively harsh. It applied the reasoning in Mercury Drug Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, where a verbal quarrel followed by disregarding an admonition and involving no issue of efficiency or honesty led only to a penalty short of dismissal, given the employee’s record of efficiency and competence.

By analogy, the Court held that the circumstances here showed at most discourtesy and did not involve efficiency or honesty. It thus agreed with

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms