Wenphil Corporation v. NLRC WENPHIL CORPORATION V.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

170 SCRA 69
GANCAYCO, J.

FACTS:
1. Private respondent Roberto Mallare was hired by petitioner Wenphil as a crew
member at its Cubao Branch. He thereafter became the assistant head of the
Backroom Department.
2. On May 20, 1985, private respondent had an altercation with a co-employee, Job
Barrameda regarding the tending of the salad bar. Mallare slapped Barramedas
cap, stepped on the latters foot, and picked up the ice scooper and brandished it
against the latter.
3. The incident was reported to the assistant manager, Delilah Hermosura, who
immediately asked Mallare to see her. Mallare refused to see Hermosura and it took
the security guard to bring him to her. Mallare then shouted profane words instead
of making an explanation before her. He stated that the matter should be settled
only by him and Barrameda.
4. The store manager, on the basis of Hermosuras report, suspended Mallare and
Barrameda until further notice. Later that day, the store manager issued a
memorandum suspending Barrameda for one week and dismissing Mallare from
service, in accordance with their Personnel Manual. The notice of dismissal was
served on Mallare on May 25, 1985.
5. Respondent Mallare filed a complaint against petitioner Wenphil for unfair labor
practice, illegal suspension, and illegal dismissal.
6. Petitioner contended that under its Personnel Manual, which had been read and
understood by respondent Mallare, an investigation shall only be conducted if the
offense committed by the erring employee is punishable with a penalty higher than
suspension of fifteen says and the erring employee requests for an investigation of
the incident. Petitioner alleged that since respondent Mallare did not ask for an
investigation, he is deemed to have waived such right.
7. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, since hearing cannot
be conducted due to the repeated absence of private respondents counsel.
8. The NLRC set aside the appealed decision and ordered the reinstatement of the
private respondent to his former position, without loss of seniority and other
benefits and one (1) year backwages without qualification and deduction. Hence,
the instant petition for review.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not petitioner Wenphil has a just and valid cause to dismiss private
respondent Roberto Mallare.
2. Whether or not the due process requirement in the manner of dismissal has been
complied with.
3. Whether or not private respondent is entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and with payment of full backwages for 3 years, without
qualification, in case he was dismissed for a cause but without due process.

HELD:
1. YES. The Supreme Court ruled with the Labor Arbiter that the dismissal of private
respondent Mallare was for a just cause. He was found guilty of grave misconduct
and insubordination. This is borne by the sworn statements of witnesses.
2. NO. The aforementioned provision of the Personnel Manual of Wenphil which may
effectively deprive its employees of the right to due process is clearly against the
law and hence, null and void. The security of tenure of a laborer or employee is
enshrined in the Constitution, the Labor Code and other related laws.
Under Section 1, Rule XIV of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor
Code, no worker shall be dismissed except for a just and authorized cause provided
by the law and after due process. Sections 2, 5, 6, and 7 of the same Rules require
that before an employee may dismiss an employee, the latter must be given a
written notice stating the particular act or omission constituting the grounds
thereof; that the employee may answer the allegations with a reasonable period;
that the employer shall afford him ample opportunity to be heard and to defend
oneself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires; and that it is only
then that the employer may dismiss the employee by notifying him of the decision
in writing, stating clearly the reasons therefor. The failure of petitioner Wenphil to
give private respondent Roberto Mallare the benefit of a hearing before he was
dismissed constitutes an infringement of his constitutional right to due process of
law and equal protection of the laws.
3. NO. The Supreme Court held that said policy must be reexamined. .It will be
highly prejudicial to the interests of the employer to impose on him the services of
an employee who has been shown guilty of the charges that warranted his dismissal
from employment. Indeed, it will demoralize the rank and file if the undeserving, if
not the 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 backwages. 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 should be maintained, He has no right to return to his former employer.
However, the petitioner must nevertheless be held to account for failure to extend
to private respondent his right to an investigation before causing his dismissal.
Petitioner must be imposed a sanction for said failure. Considering the

circumstances of the case, petitioner must indemnify the private respondent the
amount of P1,000.00The measure of this ward depends on the facts of each case
and the gravity of the omission committed by the employer. The petition is granted.

WENPHIL Corporation vs. NLRC GR No. 80587 Case

Digest
FACTS:
Private respondent Mallare had an altercation with a co-employee. The following day,
the Operations Manager served them memorandum of suspension and in the afternoon
of that same day, Mallare was dismissed from work. Labor Arbiter dismissed Mallares
petition for unfair labor practice for lack of merit. NLRC reversed the decision and
ordered the reinstatement of Mallare with full backwages of one year without
qualification and deduction.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an employee dismissed for just cause but without due process be
reinstated to work.
RULING:
The basic requirement of due proves is that which hears before it condemns, proceeds
upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. The dismissal of an employee must
be for a just cause and after due process. 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 Mallare from
employment. Petitioner must indemnify the dismissed employee which depends on the
facts of each case and the gravity of the omission committed by the employer.
Where the private respondent appears to be of violent temper, caused trouble during
office hours and even defied his supervisors as they tried to pacify him, he should not
be rewarded with re-employment and backwages. The dismissal of the respondent
should be maintained.