PACIFIC MILLS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ZENAIDA ALONZO, RESPONDENT.

From July 30, 1973, Zenaida Alonzo was employed as a ring frame
operator in the Pacific Mills, Inc. until September 30, 1982 when she was
discharged by Management.

The record shows that in the early afternoon of September 22,
1982, Zenaida challenged Company Inspector Ernesto Tamondong, to a fight,
saying: “Putang Ina mo, lumabas
ka, tarantado, kalalaki mong tao, duwag ka ’**. Ipagugulpi kita sa labas at kaya kitang ipakaladkad dito sa loob ng compound palabas ng gate sa mga
kamag-anak ko.” And suiting action to the word, she thereupon boxed
Tamondong in the stomach. The motive
for the assault was Zenaida’s resentment
at having been reprimanded, together with other employees, two days earlier by
Tamondong for wasting time by engaging in idle chatter.^[1] Tamondong forthwith reported the incident to
the firm’s Administrative Manager^[2] as well as the Chairman of Barangay
Balombato, Quezon City.^[3]

On September 30, 1982, Zenaida Alonzo was given a Memorandum by
the company’s Executive Vice President & General Manager terminating her
employment as of October 1, 1982 on various grounds: poor work, habitual absences and tardiness, wasting time,
insubordination and gross disrespect. The service of that memorandum of dismissal on her was not preceded by
any complaint, hearing or other formality. These were apparently considered unnecessary by Management^[4]
in view of the provision in the
Company Rules and Regulations (embodied in the Collective Bargaining Agreement
between the company and the union representing the employees) that:

“Fighting or attempting to inflict harm to another employee, will
render (sic) the aggressor to outright dismissal.”

It was only at the hearing of
the complaint for illegal dismissal (and non-payment of proportionate
13th month pay) instituted by Zenaida on
October 4, 1982 in the NCR Arbitration Branch, that evidence was
presented by the company not only of the assault by Zenaida on her superior but
also of many other violations by her of company rules and regulations, in an
attempt to substantiate the validity of her dismissal from work.

The Labor Arbiter found that Alonzo had indeed verbally abused
and struck her superior, Tamondong, and rejected her contention that the
assault was not punishable since it was “not work-connected and was
provoked/instigated by Ernesto Tamondong.”^[5] The
Arbiter also declared as “fully established the previous infractions of
complainant,” these being “a matter of record and not denied by
complainant (Zenaida).”

The Arbiter was of the view, however, that Alonzo was entitled to
relief, because (a) the penalty imposed was “harsh and severe and not commensurate with the offense,
* * suspension of three (3)
months * * (being) the proper, just and reasonable penalty * *;” and
because (b) the company had failed “to investigate complainant before she
was dismissed.” The Arbiter thus
ordered Pacific Mills, Inc., Zenaida’s employer:

“* * to reinstate complainant without loss of
seniority rights and to pay her backwages from January 1, 1983 until fully
reinstated, the period from October 1, 1982 to December 31, 1982 complainant
being under suspension without pay * * (as well as) to pay complainant’s 13th
month pay in the amount of THREE HUNDRED FIFTY-ONE PESOS ONLY (P351.00).”

Acting on the employer’s appeal,
the National Labor Relations Commission
rendered judgment on March 23, 1987, sustaining the Labor
Arbiter’s findings. It however limited
the award of back wages to Zenaida only to three (3) years, in accordance with
this Court’s judgment in Feati University Faculty Club (PAFLU) vs. Feati
University, 58 SCRA 396.^[6]

Pacific Mills, Inc. has instituted in this Court the special
civil action of certiorari at bar praying for nullification of
the judgment of the NLRC for having been rendered with grave abuse of
discretion.

In the comment thereon,^[7]
required of him by the Court, the
Solicitor General opined that:

“* * both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC apparently
failed to take into consideration the fact that Zenaida Alonzo was dismissed
not because of this isolated act (of assault against her superior) but rather
because of numerous and repeated violations of company rules and regulations. It was only this last incident which compelled Pacific Mills, Inc. to
finally terminate her services. It is
the totality of the infractions committed by the employee which should have
been considered in determining whether or not there is just cause for her
dismissal.

Zenaida Alonzo was caught several times leaving her place of work
to chat with her co-employees. This is
reprehensible conduct since, as ring frame operator, she must be at her post
during work hours to prevent the occurrence of incidents which could damage the
machine. The company inspector
precisely warned her against doing this. She had also been repeatedly reprimanded for insubordination, habitual
tardiness, wasting time and not wearing the required company uniform. In spite of these infractions the company
bore with her services and did not see fit to dismiss her. Her assault on the company inspector was
apparently the last straw which compelled Pacific Mills, Inc. to terminate her
services.”

Accordingly, the Solicitor General recommended “payment of
separation pay equivalent to three (3) years backwages but without
reinstatement” and of “proportionate 13th month pay.”

For their part, the Chief Legal Officer of the NLRC,^[8]
and the private respondent,^[9]
insist that since the dismissal of Zenaida Alonzo was not preceded by any notice of the charges and a hearing thereon,
the judgment of the NLRC must be sustained.

Decisive of this controversy is the judgment of the Court en banc in Wenphil Corporation
v. NLRC, promulgated
on February 8, 1989,^[10] in
which the following policy pronouncements
were made:

“The Court holds that the policy of ordering the reinstatement
to the service of an employee without loss of seniority and the payment of his wages during the period of his separation
until his actual reinstatement but not exceeding three (3) years without
qualification or deduction, when it appears he was not afforded due process,
although his dismissal was found to be for just and authorized cause in an
appropriate proceeding in the Ministry of Labor and Employment, should be
re-examined. It will be highly
prejudicial to the interests of the employer to impose on him the services of
an employee who has been shown to be guilty of the charges that warranted his
dismissal from employment. Indeed, it
will demoralize the rank and file if the undeserving, if not undesirable,
remains in the service.

Thus in the present case, where the private respondent, who appears
to be of violent temper, caused trouble during office hours and even defied his
superiors as they tried to pacify him, should not be rewarded with reemployment
and back wages. It may encourage him to
do even worse and will render a mockery of the rules of discipline that employees are required to observe. Under the circumstances, the dismissal of
the private respondent for just cause should be maintained. He has no right to return to his former employer.

However, the petitioner (employer) must nevertheless be held to
account for failure to extend to private respondent his right to an investigation before causing his
dismissal. The rule is explicit as
above discussed. The dismissal of an
employee must be for just or authorized cause and after due process (Section,
1, Rule XIV, Implementing Regulations of the Labor Code). Petitioner committed an infraction of the
second requirement. Thus, it must be
imposed a sanction for its failure to give a formal notice and conduct an
investigation as required by law before dismissing * * (respondent) from
employment. Considering the
circumstances of this case petitioner must indemnify the private respondent the
amount of P1,000.00. The measure of
this award depends on the facts of each case and the gravity of
the omission committed by the employer.”

The Court perceives no sufficient cause, it has indeed been cited
to none by the respondents, to decline to apply the Wenphil doctrine
to the case at bar.

While it is true that Pacific Mills, Inc. had not complied with
the requirements of due process prior to removing Zenaida Alonzo from,
employment, it is also true that subsequently, in the proceedings before the
Labor Arbiter in which Zenaida Alonzo
had of course taken active part, it had succeeded in satisfactorily proving the
commission by Zenaida of many violations of company rules and regulations
justifying termination of her employment. Under the circumstances, it is clear that, as the Solicitor General has
pointed out, the continuance in the
service of the latter is patently inimical to her employer’s interests and
that, citing San Miguel
Corporation v. NLRC,^[11] the law, in protecting the rights of the
laborer authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the
employer. And it was oppressive and
unjust in the premises to require reinstatement of the employee.

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted and the challenged
decision of the respondent Commission dated March 23, 1987 and that of the
Labor Arbiter thereby affirmed, are NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE. However,
the petitioner is ordered to pay
private respondent a proportionate part of the 13th month pay due her, amounting to P351.00 as well as to indemnify her in the sum of P1,000.00. No
costs.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino, and
Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, pp. 30-32

^[2]
Id., p. 31

^[3]
Id., p. 32

^[4]
Rollo, pp. 82-83

^[5]
The Arbiter’s Decision is found at pp.
31-37, rollo

^[6]
Rollo, pp. 43, 46-47

^[7]
Id., pp. 79-88

^[8]
Rollo, pp. 102-106

^[9]
Id., pp. 90-97

^[10]
170 SCRA 69, 75-76

^[11]
115 SCRA 329 (1982)