NORTH CAMARINES LUMBER CO., INC. ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. FRANCISCO BARREDA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

The Ministry of Labor and Employment in its order dated May 31, 1985 ordered North Camarines
Lumber Company, Inc. to reinstate Francisco Barreda to his former position
without loss of seniority rights and to pay him backwages for two years without
reduction or qualification.

North Camarines Lumber
Co., INC. in the instant petition for certiorari dated April
25, 1986 asked that
the MOLE order be reversed and the dismissal of Barreda upheld.

Barreda was employed as a
scaler by petitioner company in 1963.  In
1978, he became supervisor of the fell and buck section.

On January 25, 1979,
petitioner issued the fol­lowing memorandum:

“Memo M-21/79

To: 
All Employees

Subject: 
Observance of Company Rules and Regulations

“We wish to enjoin each and every employee to comply strictly
with the company rules and regulations. 
Vio­lations thereof affect not only your record as an employee but may
mean termination of your employment.

“We wish to reiterate that the penalty for the third offense
during the year is separation from the ser­vice, regardless of whether the
first two offenses were penalized by warning, reprimand or suspension.”

It appears that in 1979
Barreda committed two offenses for which he was suspended for a total of twenty days.  On October 21, 1979, a Sunday, he com­mitted
the alleged unpardonable third offense. 
He figured in a boxing incident
with Fernando Fernandez, a security
guard of petitioner.  The incident, as
admitted by petitioner, occurred in the store of one Floriano Barreda located
within the company auxiliary compound where the veneer plant proper and the
resi­dential houses of petitioner’s staff officers are situated.  The store is approximately fifteen meters
from the north gate of the compound.

The following day, petitioner addressed a memo­randum to Barreda
terminating him for having assaulted a fellow employee without sufficient
provocation and placing him under suspension pending clearance from the
Ministry of Labor.

Whereupon, on October 26, 1979, petitioner filed with the MOLE an
application for clearance to terminate Barreda’s employment.  The regional director granted the required clearance but on appeal
the MOLE set it aside and issued the order subject of this petition.

We hold that the MOLE did
not commit any grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of
Barreda with backwages.  Whether the
third offense attri­buted to Barreda was committed while the latter was off
duty and outside the company premises is not the crucial issue here.  Rather, it is the inequitable manner by
which Barreda was discharged.

While conceding the employer’s basic right to regulate the
conduct of its employees while inside company
premises, we cannot help
but notice the unusual zeal and haste displayed by petitioner in applying the
full force of its rules on Barreda. 
Undoubtedly, the boxing episode was completely blown out of
proportion.  The fisticuffs were plainly
a private matter between the two employees which had no apparent deleterious
effect on the substantial interests of the company.  Consider­ing Barreda’s length of service with
petitioner, coupled with the attendant circumstances, the penalty of dis­missal
was certainly not commensurate with his alleged misconduct.  We affirm his reinstatement with backwages
for two years.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petition
for lack of merit.

Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin,
and Cortes, JJ., concur.