G.R. No. 72555. July 31, 1987
TABACALERA INSURANCE CO. AND ALEJANDRO ROS, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND DOMINGO SIMBORIO, RESPONDENTS.
PARAS, J.:
THIS IS A SPECIAL CIVIL
ACTION FOR CERTIORARI WITH PRAYER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SEEKING TO
ANNUL AND SET ASIDE: (A) THE DECISION OF
THE RESPONDENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION PROMULGATED ON AUGUST 5,
1985 IN NLRC CASE NO. 7-3092-83 MODIFYING THE DECISION OF LABOR ARBITER ERNILO V. PEÑALOSA
AND DIRECTING PETITIONERS TO REINSTATE RESPONDENT DOMINGO SIMBORIO TO HIS
FORMER POSITION WITH PAYMENT OF ONE (1) YEAR BACK WAGES, AND (B) THE RESOLUTION
OF THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 1985 DENYING PETITIONERS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
RESPONDENT DOMINGO
SIMBORIO WAS HIRED BY PETITIONER COMPANY ON MARCH 1, 1961 AS
CLERK.
ON OCTOBER 1, 1975,
RESPONDENT DOMINGO SIMBORIO WAS PROMOTED TO THE POSITION OF CREDIT AND
COLLECTION SUPERVISOR ON A SIX-MONTH PROBATIONARY BASIS PER MEMO DATED SEPTEMBER 25,
1975 FROM MR.
CARLOS UY, JR., THEN MANAGER OF THE COMPANY (ROLLO, P. 218).
ON APRIL 1, 1976,
UPON SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETING THE SAID SIX-MONTH PROBATIONARY PERIOD, RESPONDENT
DOMINGO SIMBORIO OBTAINED HIS REGULAR STATUS AS CREDIT AND COLLECTION SUPERVISOR
(ROLLO, P. 219).
ON JUNE 28, 1983, RESPONDENT DOMINGO SIMBORIO WAS
DISMISSED FROM WORK ON THE GROUNDS OF MISCONDUCT AND LOSS OF CONFIDENCE (ROLLO,
P. 248).
RESPONDENT SIMBORIO FILED A COMPLAINT FOR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE,
REINSTATEMENT AND DAMAGES AGAINST PETITIONERS BEFORE THE NLRC ARBITRATION BRANCH, MANILA,
DOCKETED THEREIN AS NLRC CASE NO. 7-3092-83.
IN A DECISION RENDERED ON
JANUARY 24, 1984, LABOR ARBITER ERNILO V. PEÑALOSA FOUND THE DISMISSAL NEITHER ILLEGAL
NOR CONSTITUTIVE OF ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.
THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE DECISION READS:
“WHEREFORE, PURSUANT
TO ALL THE FOREGOING, LET THIS CASE BE, AS IT IS HEREBY DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO COMPLAINANT BEING PAID BY THE RESPONDENT COMPANY HIS SEPARATION
PAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY WAY OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.
“SO
ORDERED.” (LABOR
ARBITER’S DECISION, ROLLO, PP. 147-151)
THE CASE WAS APPEALED TO
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (ROLLO, PP. 152-160) WHICH ON AUGUST 5, 1985, RENDERED A DECISION (ROLLO, PP. 210-216) REINSTATING SAID RESPONDENT TO HIS FORMER POSITION WITH ONE (1) YEAR
BACKWAGES. THE DECISION STATES:
“WHEREFORE, THE APPEALED DECISION IS HEREBY MODIFIED IN THAT
RESPONDENTS ARE ORDERED TO IMMEDIATELY REINSTATE COMPLAINANT TO HIS FORMER
POSITION WITH ONE (1) YEAR BACKWAGES WITHOUT QUALIFICATION AND DEDUCTIONS
WHATSOEVER AND WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. DECISION AFFIRMED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS.
“SO ORDERED.”
PETITIONER COMPANY MOVED FOR THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE AFORESAID DECISION (ROLLO, PP.
175-184) BUT THE SAME WAS DENIED ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 (ROLLO, P. 217).
HENCE, THIS PETITION
FILED ON OCTOBER 31, 1985 (ROLLO, PP. 2-14).
THE GROUND RELIED UPON
FOR THIS PETITION IS AS FOLLOWS:
THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION GRAVELY ABUSED
ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT UNDULY FAVORED PRIVATE RESPONDENT BY ORDERING HIS REINSTATEMENT
WITH PAYMENT OF BACKWAGES DESPITE THE CLEAR FINDING OF THE LABOR ARBITER THAT
PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS DISMISSED FOR JUST AND VALID CAUSES.
WITHOUT GIVING DUE COURSE
TO THE PETITION THE COURT REQUIRED RESPONDENTS TO COMMENT THEREON (ROLLO, P.
185) AND AS PRAYED FOR, A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WAS ISSUED ENJOINING
RESPONDENT COMMISSION FROM IMPLEMENTING AND EXECUTING THE QUESTIONED DECISION
(ROLLO, P. 186).
ON DECEMBER
3, 1985, IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THIS COURT’S RESOLUTION (ROLLO, P. 185) PRIVATE RESPONDENT FILED HIS
COMMENT (ROLLO, PP. 196-207) WHILE RESPONDENT COMMISSION FILED ITS COMMENT ON FEBRUARY 17, 1986 (ROLLO, PP. 265?274).
PETITIONERS WERE REQUIRED
TO FILE A CONSOLIDATED REPLY (ROLLO, P. 277) WHICH WAS FILED ON APRIL
11, 1986 (ROLLO, PP. 285-294).
ON MAY 13, 1986,
PRIVATE RESPONDENT FILED HIS REJOINDER (ROLLO, P. 303), AND PETITIONERS THEIR SUR-REJOINDER ON AUGUST 27, 1986 (ROLLO, P. 344).
IN A RESOLUTION DATED NOVEMBER
5, 1986, THE COURT RESOLVED TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO THE PETITION (ROLLO, P. 345).
PRIVATE RESPONDENT, ON DECEMBER
24, 1986, MOVED FOR THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE AFORESAID RESOLUTION (ROLLO, P. 346). ON
JANUARY 28, 1987 THE
COURT REQUIRED THE PETITIONERS TO COMMENT ON SAID “MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION”
(ROLLO, P. 347).
IN COMPLIANCE THEREWITH
PETITIONERS FILED THEIR COMMENT ON MARCH 9, 1987 (ROLLO,
P. 350), WHILE PRIVATE RESPONDENT FILED THEIR REPLY
THERETO ON MARCH 27, 1987
(ROLLO, P. 351).
FINALLY, ON APRIL 8, 1987, THIS CASE WAS DELIBERATED UPON AND ASSIGNED FOR DECISION (ROLLO, P. 352).
THIS PETITION IS
IMPRESSED WITH MERIT.
PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT
THEIR DISMISSAL OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS LEGALLY VALID. THEIR CONTENTION CLAIMS SUPPORT FROM THE ACTS
OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AS CREDIT AND COLLECTION
SUPERVISOR WHERE HE PROVED HIMSLEF TO BE AN UNRULY, UNCOOPERATIVE AND
IRRESPONSIBLE MANAGER AS SHOWN BY THE FOLLOWING INSTANCES:
(A) FOR THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 1980 UP TO HIS DISMISSAL IN JUNE 1983 PRIVATE RESPONDENT REPORTED LATE
FOR WORK NO LESS THAN 75 TIMES
WITH EXCUSES RANGING FROM FLAT TIRES TO FICTITIOUS CUSTOMER CALLS;
(B) PRIVATE
RESPONDENT’S USED DISRESPECTFUL AND ABUSIVE LANGUAGE WHEN ADDRESSING HIS
SUPERIORS AND CUSTOMERS. MORE
SPECIFICALLY, HE UNJUSTIFIABLY USED THREATENING LANGUAGE AGAINST PETITIONERS’
PERSONNEL MANAGER AND NO LESS THAN FIVE (5) OF THEIR REGULAR CLIENTS REPORTED
THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAD BEEN CONDUCTING HIS TRANSACTIONS WITH THEM IN A
VERY UNPROFESSIONAL AND OFFENSIVE MANNER; AND
(C) PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS PROVED TO HAVE
FREQUENTLY HUNG HIS CLOTHES IN THE LADIES’ ROOM DESPITE THE LADIES’ COMPLAINTS
REGARDING HIS PRESENCE THERE. (POSITION
PAPER OF PETITIONERS, ROLLO, PP. 31-42)
PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S BEHAVIOR CONSTITUTES
SERIOUS MISCONDUCT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT HIS TERMINATION. THEY CLAIMED THAT THEY HAD TO SEND LETTERS OF
APOLOGY TO THEIR CUSTOMERS AND THIS HAS DEFINITELY CAUSED GRAVE PREJUDICE TO
THEIR BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND INTERESTS.
ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S POSITION THAT HIS
DISMISSAL WAS THE RESULT OF SEVERAL CONCOCTED OR SIMULATED COMPLAINTS IMPUTED
AGAINST HIM BY PETITIONERS AFTER HE AND
SOME OF HIS CO-SUPERVISORS JOINED AS MEMBERS OF THE RANK-AND-FILE UNION IN THE
COMPANY. HE CLAIMS THAT HE STARTED TO
INCUR THE IRE AND IRRITATION OF PETITIONER COMPANY WHEN HE OPPOSED THE
REORGANIZATION OF THE COMPANY WHICH TENDED TO LOWER THE CATEGORY OF HIS
DEPARTMENT AND WHEN HE LATER DISCOVERED THE WIDE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE SERVICES
AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SUPERVISORS AND THEIR CORRESPONDING SALARY
INCREASES AS COMPARED TO THOSE OF THE CONTRACTUAL WORKERS UNDER THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT, WHICH DISCREPANCIES TRIGGERED THE MOVE OF THE SUPERVISORS
FOR A HIGHER SALARY ADJUSTMENT AND FOR INCLUSION IN THE UNION. THE REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN SALARY WAS
REJECTED BY THE COMPANY WITH ALLEGED INSINUATION OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST
PRIVATE RESPONDENT SHOULD THE LATTER PURSUE THE ISSUE FURTHER. AS HE EXPECTED, HE WAS MADE TO EXPLAIN THE
COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST HIM AND WAS PREVENTIVELY SUSPENDED ON JUNE 21,
1983. HIS SERVICES WERE TERMINATED ON JUNE 28,
1983 FOR GROSS
MISCONDUCT/LOSS OF CONFIDENCE. (ROLLO,
PP. 102-109)
CLAIMING THAT PETITIONERS
DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO TERMINATE HIS SERVICES, PRIVATE RESPONDENT
FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION OF
THE MOLE FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL,
COUPLED WITH THE CHARGE OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE AND CLAIMS FOR MORAL, ACTUAL
AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGE PLUS ATTORNEY’S FEES.
(ROLLO, P. 147)
THE FINDINGS OF FACTS OF
THE LABOR ARBITER ARE AS FOLLOWS:
“WHETHER OR NOT THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINANT IS ILLEGAL, A
CAREFUL REVIEW OF THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD WILL READILY DISCLOSE A
NEGATIVE ANSWER. AS SUPERVISOR, THE
COMPLAINANT IS INDEED DUTY BOUND TO MAINTAIN AN IMPECCABLE RECORD OF ATTENDANCE
AND PUNCTUALITY NOT ONLY TO BOOST THE MORALE OF HIS PEERS AND SUBORDINATES BUT
ALSO FOR HIM TO ATTEND TO IMPORTANT BUSINESS MATTERS THAT MAY ARISE DURING THE
FIRST HOURS OF EACH WORK DAY. IN FACT,
HIS BEING FOUND TO HAVE BEEN REPORTING LATE FOR WORK FOR NO LESS THAN
SEVENTY-FIVE (75) TIMES DURING A TWO-YEAR PERIOD DOES NOT SPEAK WELL OF HIS
COMMITMENT TO HIS FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS A SUPERVISOR, ESPECIALLY
CONSIDERING THE LAME EXCUSES HE USED TO JUSTIFY HIS FREQUENT TARDINESS, E.G.,
‘FLAT TIRES, PERSONAL MATTERS, CAR REPAIRS, ETC.’
“IN THE SAME BREATH, COMPLAINANT’S REACTION TO THE MEMORANDUM
OF THE PERSONNEL MANAGER WHICH ASKED HIM TO REFRAIN FROM ENTERING AND HANGING
HIS CLOTHES IN THE LADIES’ ROOM CLEARLY CONSTITUTES CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF A
MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEE, FOR INSTEAD OF DISPLAYING A CERTAIN DEGREE OF DECORUM
AND RESPECT HE RESPONDED WITH UNCALLED FOR OUTBURST AND LANGUAGE NOT EXPECTED
OF HIM BY REASON OF HIS POSITION.
“MOREOVER, AS A CREDIT AND COLLECTION SUPERVISOR WHOSE FUNCTIONS REQUIRE CONSTANT RAPPORT WITH THE CUSTOMERS
OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY, HE WAS EXPECTED TO USE AT ALL TIMES TACT AND
DIPLOMACY WHEN DEALING WITH THE CUSTOMERS.
BUT CONTRARY TO THIS EXPECTATION, COMPLAINTS WERE RECEIVED FROM REGULAR
CLIENTS THAT HE WAS CONDUCTING HIS TRANSACTIONS WITH THE LATTER IN A VERY
UNPROFESSIONAL AND OFFENSIVE MANNER, THEREBY FORCING THE RESPONDENTS THRU THEIR
ASSISTANT MANAGER TO WRITE LETTERS OF APOLOGY TO SAID COMPLAINING CLIENTS
INASMUCH AS SAID UNPROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOUR IS CAUSING GRAVE PREJUDICE TO THE
BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND INTERESTS OF THE RESPONDENTS. THIS HAS BEEN AGGRAVATED WHEN HE SHOUTED AT A
CLIENT AND EVEN WENT TO THE EXTENT OF CHALLENGING THE LATTER TO A FISTFIGHT.
“UNDER THE FOREGOING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IT COULD BE SAID
THAT IF ON ACCOUNT OF THE ACTS AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF COMPLAINANT HE HAD
SHOWN THAT HE COULD NOT EFFECTIVELY PERFORM HIS DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
WHEN QUARRELING WITH THE CLIENTS AND THAT HE COULD NOT SET HIMSELF AS A GOOD
EXAMPLE WHEN HE IS THE FIRST ONE TO BREAK THE RULES OF DISCIPLINE AND GOOD
CONDUCT, THEN THE RESPONDENTS HAD ENOUGH REASON IN DISPENSING WITH HIS SERVICES
DUE TO SERIOUS MISCONDUCT AND TO LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN HIM.”
ON APPEAL, RESPONDENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
REVERSED THE FINDINGS OF THE LABOR ARBITER AND OPTED INSTEAD TO BASE ITS
DECISION ON THE POSSIBILITY OR SUPPOSITION THAT THERE WAS A PREMEDITATED PLAN
ON THE PART OF MANAGEMENT TO DO AWAY WITH PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S SERVICES. (ROLLO, P. 211)
A CAREFUL REVIEW
OF THE RECORDS FAILS TO SHOW HOWEVER, ANY SUPPOSED CONNECTION BETWEEN THE
REQUESTS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT FOR SALARY INCREASE AND FOR AFFILIATION IN THE UNION
WITH THE REPLIES AND ACTION OF THE PETITIONER-EMPLOYERS THEREON FROM WHICH SUCH
PREMEDITATED PLAN WAS INFERRED. ON THE CONTRARY, PRIVATE RESPONDENT FAILED
TO REFUTE THE CHARGES BROUGHT BY THE PETITIONERS AGAINST HIM WHICH ARE BASED ON
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. INSTEAD, HE
CONFINED HIMSELF TO BARE DENIALS AND COUNTER CHARGES OF TRUMPED-UP
INVESTIGATION WHICH ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORDS. (ROLLO, PP. 108-110) MORE THAN THAT, HE WAS
FOUND TO HAVE ADOPTED DECEPTIVE CLAIMS AND MEASURES WHICH WOULD TEND TO BECLOUD
THE ISSUES OF THIS CASE. (ROLLO, PP.
108-110)
THUS THE LABOR ARBITER CORRECTLY FOUND THE FOLLOWING:
“REGARDING COMPLAINANT’S CLAIM THAT HIS DISMISSAL WAS IN
RETALIATION AGAINST HIS HAVING FILED A PETITION WITH THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
REGION, MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, SEEKING FOR A DECLARATION THAT
SUPERVISORS ARE NON-MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES QUALIFIED FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE
RANK-AND-FILE UNION EXISTING IN THE RESPONDENT COMPANY, IT APPEARS THAT THE FILING
OF SAID PETITION ON JUNE 21, 1983, THE VERY SAME DAY COMPLAINANT WAS PLACED WAS
PLACED UNDER PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION, WAS MORE OF AN ANTICIPATION OF WHATEVER
ACTION THE RESPONDENTS MAY TAKE AGAINST HIM SO THAT, AS CONVINCINGLY THEORIZED
BY THE RESPONDENTS, ANY SUBSEQUENT TERMINATION ACTION TAKEN AGAINST HIM WOULD
BE VIEWED AS A RETALIATORY MEASURE. THIS
FACT COULD BE VIEWED FROM HIS DECEPTIVE CLAIM THAT HE WAS JOINED IN SAID
PETITION BY FOUR (4) OTHER CO-SUPERVISORS AND YET, THE LATTER HAD EXECUTED INDIVIDUAL
AFFIDAVITS DECLARING THAT THE FILING OF THE PETITION WAS WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT
AND THAT THEY HAVE NO INTENTION TO SUE THE RESPONDENTS.”
UNDER ART. 283 OF THE LABOR CODE, AN
EMPLOYER MAY TERMINATE AN EMPLOYMENT FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING JUST CAUSES:
(A) SERIOUS MISCONDUCT OR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE
BY THE EMPLOYEE OF THE LAWFUL ORDERS OF HIS EMPLOYER OR REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONNECTION WITH HIS WORK;
(B) GROSS AND HABITUAL NEGLECT BY THE EMPLOYEE OF
HIS DUTIES;
(C) FRAUD OR WILLFUL BREACH BY THE EMPLOYEE OF
THE TRUST REPOSED IN HIM BY HIS EMPLOYER OR DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE;
(D) COMMISSION OF A CRIME OR OFFENSE BY THE
EMPLOYEE AGAINST THE PERSON OF HIS EMPLOYER OR ANY IMMEDIATE MEMBER OF HIS
FAMILY OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE; AND
(E) OTHER CAUSES ANALOGOUS TO THE FOREGOING.
LOSS OF CONFIDENCE AS A
GROUND FOR DISMISSAL DOES NOT ENTAIL PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
EMPLOYEE’S MISCONDUCT. IT IS ENOUGH THAT
THERE BE “SOME BASIS” FOR SUCH LOSS OF CONFIDENCE OR THAT “THE
EMPLOYER HAS REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE, IF NOT TO ENTERTAIN THE MORAL
CONVICTION THAT THE EMPLOYEE CONCERNED IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISCONDUCT AND
THAT THE NATURE OF HIS PARTICIPATION THEREIN RENDERED HIM ABSOLUTELY UNWORTHY
OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE DEMANDED BY HIS POSITION” (REYES VS. ZAMORA, 90 SCRA 92, 111
[1979]; GALSIM VS. PNB, 29 SCRA 293 [1969]).
IN THE CASE AT BAR,
PRIVATE RESPONDENT OCCUPIED THE POSITION OF CREDIT AND COLLECTION
SUPERVISOR, CLASSIFIED UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE COMPANY’S COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT (ROLLO, P. 79) AS MANAGERIAL/SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL. IN ADDITION TO HIS REGULAR FUNCTIONS AS SUCH,
HE ALSO HAD THE POWER TO RECOMMEND THE HIRING AND APPOINTMENT OF HIS
SUBORDINATES, AS WELL AS THE POWER TO RECOMMEND ANY PROMOTION AND/OR INCREASE
(ROLLO, P. 4). OTHERWISE STATED, HE IS
“ONE IN WHOM PETITIONER COMPANY HAS GIVEN
ITS COMPLETE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE. X X X THE COMPANY, THEREFORE, WAS
JUSTIFIED IN EXPECTING THAT HIS ACTUATIONS SHOULD BE ABOVE SUSPICION” (REYES
VS. ZAMORA, 90 SCRA 92
[1979]).
MOREOVER, WHILE THERE IS
NO QUESTION THAT THE RIGHT OF AN EMPLOYER TO FREELY SELECT OR DISCHARGE HIS
EMPLOYEES, IS SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE STATE BASICALLY IN THE EXERCISE OF
ITS PARAMOUNT POLICE POWER (MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. VS. ZULUETA, ET
AL., 69 PHIL. 485, [1940]), THERE IS ALSO AN EQUALLY ESTABLISHED
PRINCIPLE THAT AN EMPLOYER CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO CONTINUE IN EMPLOYMENT AN
EMPLOYEE GUILTY OF ACTS INIMICAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE EMPLOYER AND JUSTIFYING
LOSS OF CONFIDENCE IN HIM (MANILA TRADING AND SUPPLY CO. VS. MANILA TRADING LABORER.S ASSO.,
83 PHIL. 297 [1949]; PECO VS.
PECO EMPLOYEES UNION, 107 PHIL. 1003 [1960];
DEVANS VS. CIR, 23 SCRA 1321 [1968]; GAS CORPORATION OF THE HARDWOOD AND VENEER
CO. OF THE PHIL. VS. LEOGARDO, 117 SCRA 967
[1982]; DOLE PHIL. INC. VS.
NLRC, 123 SCRA 673, 677 [1983]).
THE RECORDS REVEAL THAT
PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAS THE KNACK FOR SAYING HARSH AND ROUGH WORDS BOTH TO HIS
SUPERIORS AND TO THE COMPANY’S CLIENTS.
WHEN HIS ATTENTION WAS CALLED BY THE ASSISTANT MANAGER OF PETITIONER
COMPANY CONCERNING HIS ENTERING THE LADIES’ ROOM TO HANG UP HIS CLOTHES, HE REPLIED IN THIS WISE:
“WHAT FORCED ME TO ENTER THE LADIES ROOM TO HANG-UP MY CLOTHES IS THE VERY INHUMAN ACTS COMMITTED
AGAINST ME BY SOMEBODY IN THIS OFFICE WHO HAD, ON TWO INSTANCES, THROWN MY
CLOTHES INSIDE THE MEN’S ROOM. (PASALAMAT SIYA HINDI KO NAHULI SA ACTO). FINALLY, IF YOU ARE THINKING THAT I’M UP TO
DOING SOMETHING BAD AGAINST OUR LADIES IN THIS OFFICE, REST-ASSURED THAT THIS
WILL NOT HAPPEN, FOR, AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE, ALL OF THEM DO NOT MEET MY
STANDARD AND NONE OF THEM FOR THAT MATTER, WILL GET MY SYMPATHY NOR TEMPT ME TO
COMMIT A WRONG.” (ANNEX
“D”, ROLLO, P. 67)
WITH THIS FRAME OF MIND,
IT CAN HARDLY BE DOUBTED THAT HE HAS BREACHED THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED
IN HIM BY HIS EMPLOYER RESULTING IN ACTS INIMICAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE
COMPANY. IN THE CASE OF SEA-LAND
SERVICE, INC. VS. NLRC, 136 SCRA 544 (1985), THE COURT IN SUSTAINING THE DISMISSAL OF ONE JOSELITO REYES, A
WAREHOUSE CLERK RULED THAT IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT THE EMPLOYER SHOULD HAVE A
BASIS FOR BELIEVING THAT THE EMPLOYEE ‘BREACHED THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
REPOSED IN HIM’ BY HIS EMPLOYER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 283
(C) OF THE LABOR CODE. THIS FACT NEED NOT BE PROVEN BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, THE ASSAILED DECISION OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION DATED AUGUST 5, 1985, AND ITS RESOLUTION DATED
SEPTEMBER 27, 1985, ARE HEREBY SET ASIDE, AND THE DECISION OF THE LABOR ARBITER
DATED JANUARY 24, 1984, IS HEREBY REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, C.J., (Chairman), Narvasa, Cruz, and Gancayco, JJ., concur.