MAULA vs.

XIMEX
G.R. No. 207838 ; January 25, 2017

Peralta, J.:
FACTS
On May 12, 2009, petitioner Leo Maula filed a complaint against
respondent Ximex Delivery Express, Inc. (Ximex) and its officers, for
illegal dismissal, among others.
Petitioner is employed in Ximex as an operation staff. Petitioner’s
employment was uneventful until came February 18, 2009, when
respondent’s HRD required him and other co-employees to sign a
form subtitled Personal Data for New Hires. When he inquired about
it, he was told that it was nothing and that it was only for the twenty-
peso increase which the accompany owner allegedly wanted to see.
On February 29, 2009, he, together with some other concerned
employees, requested for a meeting with their manager together with
the HRD manager. They questioned the document and aired their
apprehensions against the designation, “For New Hires”, since they
were long time regular employees earning monthly salary wages not
daily wages, as against what was in the form. The company’s
manager (Amador Cabrera) retorted: “Ay wala yan walang kwenta
yan”. When he disclosed that he consulted a lawyer, respondent
Cabrera insisted it was nothing and accordingly no lawyer could say
that it really matters. Cabrera even dared the petitioner to present the
lawyer. The meeting was concluded. When Maula was about to exit
the conference room, he was addressed with the parting words of,
“kung gusto mo mag labor ka”. He did not react.
On March 4, 2009, the petitioner filed a complaint before the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board. During the hearing, it was agreed
upon that shall be no retaliatory action between petitioner and
company arising from the complaint.
Consequently, events happened in the workplace which, to the
petitioner, were frame-ups and malicious accusations of things he
was not guilty of. A total of three memorandums was served to him.
The first being that a supposed problem which cropped up when he
was accused responsible of an erroneous label in the cargo which led
to its rerouting the third being the dismissal order. The second was
when he was reassigned, without clear explanation, to another
department and was tasked to train the one taking over his prior
assignment. He was accused of not attending to his new assignment.
His apprehensions were thus confirmed.
On April 8, 2009, he filed a new complaint with the NCMB. Hearings
were scheduled but the respondents never appeared. On May 4,
2009, he reported to the office only to be denied entry. Instead a
dismissal letter was handed to him.
The case was brought to the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) for arbitration. Efforts were exerted by the Labor Arbiter (LA)
to encourage the parties to amicably settle but without success.
The LA ruled for the petitioner. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed in toto
the LA’s decision.
Respondents elevated the case to the CA, which reversed and set
aside the decision of the NLRC.
ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner committed serious misconduct justifying
his dismissal.
HELD
No.
The CA erred when it made its own factual determination of the
matters involved, and, on that basis, reversed the NLRC ruling that
affirmed the findings of the LA.
The exercise of disciplining and imposing appropriate penalties on
erring employees must be practiced in good faith and for the
advancement of the employer’s interest and not for the purpose of
defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special
laws or under valid agreements.
The unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of the
employer do not provide legal justification for dismissing the
employee. When in doubt, the case should be resolved in favour of
labor pursuant to the social justice policy of our Labor laws and the
1987 Constitution.
Respondents manifestly failed to prove that petitioner’s alleged act
constitutes serious misconduct. For misconduct or improper
behaviour to be a just cause for dismissal, (a) it must be serious; (b) it
must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and, (c) it
must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working
for the employer.
The admittedly insulting and unbecoming language uttered by
petitioner to the HR Manager should be viewed with reasonable
leniency in light of the fact that it was committed under an emotionally
charged state. We agree with the LA and NLRC that the on-the-spur-
of-the-moment outburst of petitioner, he having reached his breaking
point, was due to what he perceived as successive retaliatory and
orchestrated actions of respondent. Indeed, there was only lapse in
judgment rather than a premeditated defiance of authority.
Furthermore, respondent cannot invoke the principle of totality of
infractions considering that petitioner’s alleged previous acts of
misconduct were not established in accordance with the requirements
of procedural due process.
The court finds the penalty of dismissal too harsh. Petitioner’s
termination for employment is also inappropriate considering that he
had been with respondent company for seven years and he had no
previous derogatory record.
Petitioner’s preventive suspension of 30 days was also inappropriate.
Wherefore, the petition is granted. The CA’s decision is reversed and
set aside. The LA is directed to re-compute the proper amount of
back wages and separation pay due to petitioner in accordance with
this decision