CLUB FILIPINO, INC., PETITIONER, VS. VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR JESUS C. SEBASTIAN, CLUB FILIPINO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (CLUFEA), FORTUNATO GUPA, JR. AND ERNESTO LORENZO, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside
the award dated July 27, 1988 of the voluntary arbitrator Jesus Sebastian, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

“Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, it is hereby ruled that
Fortunato Gupa, Jr. is considered suspended from work effective May 22, 1988 up
to September 22, 1988 while Ernesto Lorenzo is considered suspended from work
effective June 22, 1988 up to August 22, 1988.”^[1]

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:

At around 8:00 P.M. of May
20, 1988, respondent Fortunato Gupa, Jr., a pin boy of petitioner Club
Filipino, went berserk and broke the mirror and drinking glasses of the
employee’s canteen of the petitioner while under the influence of liquor. Immediately, the house officer of the
petitioner, Maximo Mercado, rushed to the scene of the incident and tried to
pacify respondent Gupa, Jr. Instead,
Mercado was punched by respondent Gupa, Jr. and, in order to stop the latter
from inflicting more harm upon him hit respondent Gupa, Jr. with his guard’s
nightstick.

On June 16, 1988, petitioner sent a notice of termination
effective June 22, 1988 to respondent Gupa, Jr., pertinent portion of which
reads:

“Based on the
investigation conducted by our fact finding committee you have been found
guilty of violating Section 4(b) of the Rules and Regulations for Club
Employees, particularly the following:

Paragraph 4 –

‘Deliberate
destruction of property belonging to another person, committed during working
time or on Club premises, or of Club property regardless of time or place.’

Paragraph 19 –

‘Drinking of
alcoholic beverages during working time or on Club premises, except on Club –
authorized occasions.’

Paragraph 21 –

‘Entering Club premises or performing
work while under the influence of liquor or narcotics.’

Paragraph 30 –

‘Assaulting a supervisor or any official of the Club.’

Your letter dated May 30, 1988 shows a
complete disregard for management’s efforts to seek the truth regarding the May
20, 1988 incident. Despite the fact
that several witnesses attested to your having been seen breaking glasses and
the mirror at the employees canteen and assaulting a house officer, you have feigned ignorance about the
incident. In addition to the above
violations you have complicated your case by giving untruthful statements in an
investigation which is punishable by termination.”^[2]

On the same date, petitioner also sent a notice of termination
effective June 23, 1988 to respondent Ernesto Lorenzo, a waiter of the
petitioner, for continuously violating the Rules and Regulations for Club
Employees on absenteeism, tardiness and compiling a long list of missing and
unsigned chits.^[3]
In fact, said respondent was suspended several times in the past for violation
of said acts.

As a result of said terminations, respondent Club Filipino
Employees Association (CLUFEA) filed a notice of strike on June 29, 1988 with
the Department of Labor and Employment against petitioner for unfair labor
practice, harassment and illegal termination.^[4]

On July 5, 1988, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging
that respondent CLUFEA failed to comply with the existing Collective Bargaining
Agreement which mandates that the parties have to go through a grievance
procedure as set forth in said agreement in case of a controversy arising
between the Club and employees involving disciplinary action.^[5]

In a conference held on
July 22, 1988, the parties agreed that the cases of private respondents
Gupa, Jr. and Lorenzo regarding their dismissals shall be resolved by a
voluntary arbitrator by the name of Jesus Sebastian and as a consequence
thereof, the Notice of Strike was withdrawn.^[6]

On July 27, 1988, public respondent Sebastian rendered a decision
suspending respondent Gupa, Jr. for 4 months effective May 22, 1988 up to
September 22, 1988 and respondent Lorenzo for 2 months effective June 22, 1988
up to August 22, 1988.

Unhappy over the decision of the voluntary arbitrator, petitioner
elevated the matter to this Court in a petition for certiorari alleging grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the voluntary arbitrator in merely
suspending private respondents Gupa, Jr. and Lorenzo instead of outrightly
dismissing them considering that the acts of said respondents constitute valid
grounds for dismissal under the Labor Code and the Collective Bargaining
Agreement between the CLUFEA and the petitioner.

The Labor Code of the Philippines sanctions termination by the
employer of the employee’s services for a just cause as enumerated in Article
282 of said Code which provides:

“ART. 282. Termination by employer. – An employer may terminate an employment for any of the
following 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.”

In the case of private respondent Gupa, Jr., his services were
terminated by the petitioner after having been found guilty of destroying the
properties of the petitioner and assaulting petitioner’s House Officer while
under the influence of liquor, within petitioner’s premises during working
hours, which is a clear violation of Section 4(b) of the Rules and Regulations
for Club Employees, particularly paragraphs 4, 19, 21 and 30, as well as the
aforementioned Article of the Labor Code. Furthermore, previous to this incident, respondent Gupa, Jr. had already
been terminated by the petitioner for misappropriation but which termination
was reconsidered as part of a compromise agreement entered into between the
CLUFEA and the petitioner.

Likewise, respondent Lorenzo’s habitual absenteeism without
leave, violated the Rules and Regulations for Club Employees, which is sufficient
to justify his termination. Moreover,
respondent Lorenzo was also previously suspended for inability to account for
missing and unsigned chits, which suspension was decided upon by the Department
of Labor. At any rate, since Lorenzo
had already resigned from petitioner’s service on October 15, 1988, he is not entitled to severance pay.

Serious misconduct in the form of drunkenness and disorderly and
violent behavior, habitual neglect of duty, and insubordination or willful
disobedience of the lawful order of his superior officer, are just causes for
the dismissal of an employee.^[7]

The evidence on record clearly shows the unforgivable act of
respondent Gupa, Jr. in causing trouble during working hours and who refused to
be pacified in spite of the admonition of his superior, to the extent of even
assaulting the latter. For such
misconduct, respondent Gupa, Jr. should not be rewarded with re-employment and
backwages. To do so would wreck havoc
on the disciplinary rules that employees are required to observe. Under the circumstances, the dismissal of
respondent Gupa, Jr. should be sustained. Petitioner had been more than lenient with respondent Gupa, Jr. when it
reconsidered its decision to terminate him in a previous violation of company
rules regarding misappropriation and refrained from prosecuting him criminally.

In the case at bar, there can be no question of private
respondents’ culpability for violation of company rules and regulations. Their dismissal is called for without
payment of separation pay as their dismissal is for a just and valid cause.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby
granted and the decision of the voluntary arbitrator, Jesus Sebastian, is
hereby annulled and set aside. Private
respondents Fortunato Gupa, Jr. and Ernesto Lorenzo are hereby dismissed from
the service of petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), and
Regalado, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., no part, in view
of past membership with petitioner.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 85.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 48.

^[3]
Petition, Annex “F”.

^[4]
Petition, Annex “A”.

^[5]
Petition, Annex “B”.

^[6]
Petition, Annex “E”.

^[7]
Seahorse Maritime Corporation vs. NLRC, 173 SCRA 390 (1989).