LABOR CASE DIGEST Serious misconduct as a ground for dismissal
Respondent Renante J. Obra was employed by petitioner Holcim Philippines, Inc. as a packhouse oper- ator in its La Union Plant for 19 years. Last July 10, 2013, he was about to exit petitioner’s Gate 2, when the security guard on
Read the Supreme Court’s decision in Holcim Philippines vs. Renante Obra here: bit.ly/2r4rO9B
duty asked him to submit himself and the backpack he was carrying for inspection. Respondent refused and confided to the guard that he has a piece of scrap electric wire in his bag. He requested the guard not to report the incident to the management. When his request to bring the scrap wire outside the company premises was refused, he immediately went back to return the wire from where he took it.
After observing due process, petitioner dismissed respondent last Aug. 8, 2013 for serious misconduct. The Court of Appeals ( CA), in affirming the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission ( NLRC), pointed out that petitioner failed to prove that it prohibited its employees from taking scrap materials outside the company premises. It found that respondent’s acts only constituted a lapse of judgment which does not amount to serious misconduct. Did the CA commit a reversible error?
Ruling: No.
In this case, the Court agrees with the CA and the NLRC that respondent’s misconduct is not so gross as to deserve the penalty of dismissal from service. As correctly observed by the NLRC, while there is no dispute that respondent took a piece of wire from petitioner’s La Union Plant and tried to bring it outside the company premises, he did so in the belief that the same was already for disposal. Notably, petitioner never denied that the piece of wire was already for disposal and, hence, practically of no value. At any rate, petitioner did not suffer any damage from the incident, given that after being asked to submit himself and his bag for inspection, respondent had a change of heart and decided to just return the wire to the Packhouse Office. Respondent has also shown remorse for his mistake, pleading repeatedly with petitioner to reconsider the penalty imposed upon him.
Time and again, the Court has held that infractions committed by an employee should merit only the corresponding penalty demanded by the circumstance. The penalty must be commensurate with the act, conduct or omission imputed to the employee. xxx
Neither can respondent’s infraction be characterized as a serious misconduct which, under Article 282 ( now Article 297) of the Labor Code, is a just cause for dismissal. Misconduct is an improper or wrong conduct, or a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.
To constitute a valid cause for dismissal within the text and meaning of Article 282 ( now Article 297) of the Labor Code, the employee’s misconduct must be serious, i.e., of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant, as in this case where the item which respondent tried to takeout was practically of no value to petitioner. Moreover, ill will or wrongful intent cannot be ascribed to respondent, considering that, while he asked Castillo not to report the incident to the management, he also volunteered the information that he had a piece of scrap wire in his bag and offered to return it if the same could not possibly be brought outside the company premises sans a gate pass ( Perlas- Bernabe, J.; SC 1st Division, Holcim Philippines, Inc. vs. Renante J. Obra, G. R. No. 220998, Aug. 8, 2016). ( Almirante is a former labor arbiter.)
ON THE WEB