ARIS PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, CONFEDERATION OF FILIPINO WORKERS ARIS PHILS., WORKERS UNION AND ARNEL SANTOS, RESPONDENTS.

This petition for certiorari
assails the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission
(“NLRC”), which affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter, and the
NLRC resolution of 14 February 1991, denying herein petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.

On 28 September 1988, Arnel Santos, when questioned by Eufemia
Bautista, a canteen helper, for his use of somebody else’s identification card
(“ID”), flared up and shouted invectives (“wala kang pakialam!
Kung gusto mo, itapon ko itong mga pagkain ninyo”) at her. When he noticed that some people were
staring at him rather menacingly, he left the canteen posthaste but returned a
few minutes later to remark challengingly: “Sino ba ang nagagalit?” Forthwith, he began smashing some
food items on display for sale at the canteen. He then slapped Eufemia which caused her to fall and suffer slight
contusions. The security
officer-in-charge submitted a report on the incident to the company
officials. Eufemia filed, on September
1988, a written complaint with Jesus Perez, the personnel manager of Aris,
against Santos.

Perez issued a memorandum and required Santos to explain in
writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against him. On 01 October 1989, Santos submitted an
explanation. He admitted his misconduct
but tried to explain it away by saying that he was under the influence of
liquor at the time of the incident. On
17 October 1988, the personnel manager issued a letter of termination from
employment of Santos for “gross misconduct seriously violative of (the)
company rules and regulations.”

Some time later, Eufemia filed with the “Lupong
Tagapayapa” of Barangay Orando, a complaint against Santos. She eventually filed with the Municipal
Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, a complaint charging Santos with slight
physical injuries. She, however,
subsequently executed an affidavit of desistance, and the complaint was
thereupon dismissed.

Santos and the Confederation of Filipino Workers-Aris Philippines
Workers Union (Union) filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. On 21 July 1989, Labor Arbiter Edilberto J.
Pangan rendered a decision, the dispositive portions of which read:

“WHEREFORE, respondent Aris Philippines, Inc. is hereby
ordered to reinstate complainant Arnel Santos to his former position, or any
equivalent one without backwages.

“The period from the date of his dismissal on September 1988 up to
his actual reinstatement shall be considered as the penalty for his misbehavior
and/or misconduct. Should he commit any offense and/or any
infraction which is punishable by dismissal pursuant to the Manual of Personnel
Policies and Procedures, complainant will accept the penalty, and abide by the
respondent’s decision.”^[1]

An appeal was timely interposed with the NLRC. On 28 December 1990, the NLRC affirmed the
decision of the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC further observed:

“x x x (T)he slapping/punching incident involving the
complainant and Ms. Bautista happened in the canteen. The misconduct of the complainant, therefore, was not connected
with his employment. As a matter of
fact, said incident did not, in any way, disrupt the operations of
respondent. Consequently, the ultimate
penalty of dismissal is too severe.”^[2]

Hence, the instant petition on the ground that respondent NLRC
gravely abused its discretion when it held that the acts of private respondent
did not constitute serious misconduct that could justify his dismissal from
employment.

We must deny the petition.

The just causes of termination of employment are specifically
enumerated in Article 282 of the Labor Code. Hence –

“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.” (Underscoring
supplied.)

It is not disputed that private respondent has done, indeed he
has admitted to having committed, a serious misconduct. In order to constitute a “just
cause” for dismissal, however, the act complained of must be related to
the performance of the duties of the employee such as would show him to be
thereby unfit to continue working for the employer.^[3] While
we do not condone the guilt of private respondent, we, nevertheless, are
concluded by the factual finding of the NLRC that his misconduct is not
work-related and did not, in any way, disrupt the operations of the company.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED, and the temporary
restraining order issued by this Court on 15 April 1991 is now LIFTED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Bidin, Romero, and Melo,
JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., (Chairman), on
leave.

^[1]
Rollo, pp. 18-19.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 21.

^[3]
Alcantara, Philippine Labor and Social Legislation Annotated, vol. 1, 1991 ed.,
p. 625; Tolentino vs. NLRC, 152 SCRA 717.