View full case

MARIO GUTIERREZ v. SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY

FACTS:

Mario Gutierrez was initially hired by Singer Sewing Machine Company as an Audit Assistant on a contractual basis. He eventually became an Accounts Checker and acquired regular status as an Asset Auditor. On August 1, 1996, Gutierrez and three other auditors were caught watching a video tape during non-break time. The following day, Gutierrez admitted to posting a sign with the message "No Urinating Here" on the door of the Asset/Legal Department Office. He explained that he did it out of his own pleasure. Despite being directed to remove the sign, Gutierrez refused. Gutierrez discussed the incidents with his supervisor and received a memo requiring him to explain his side. Gutierrez claimed that he posted the sign to protect a co-employee and that they were instructed to use the video equipment by their supervisor. A memo was later issued by the company accusing Gutierrez of violating company rules and regulations. Gutierrez was given until August 30, 1996, to explain why dismissal should not be imposed on him. Gutierrez insisted that he had already explained verbally to his supervisor, so no written explanation was submitted. On September 9, 1996, Gutierrez was dismissed for willful defiance and disregard of company authority. He filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. Gutierrez then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter, which was dismissed. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision and found in favor of Gutierrez. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Gutierrez now seeks to reverse and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals through a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in procedural and evidentiary matters, such as relying solely on the affidavits of respondents' employees and shifting the burden of proof to the petitioner in violation of due process.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC's finding that respondents were guilty of illegal dismissal.

  3. Whether the complainant's action of watching video films during office hours is justified by his claim that he was asked by his supervisor to test the video tape player.

  4. Whether the act of posting a sign on an office door falls within the scope of the company rule on vandalism.

  5. Whether the alleged infractions committed by the complainant merit the penalty of dismissal from employment.

  6. Whether the penalty of dismissal imposed on the complainant is commensurate with his alleged infractions.

RULING:

  1. The Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that procedural due process was not violated by management in this case. Singer complied with the two-notice requirement, giving the petitioner the opportunity to explain his side of the controversy. The petitioner voluntarily chose not to provide a written explanation and insisted that his verbal explanation was sufficient. Therefore, due process was satisfied as Singer provided the petitioner with a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain his side.

  2. The Court disagrees with the Court of Appeals and agrees with the NLRC's finding that the petitioner's dismissal was unjustified and illegal. The violations alleged by Singer, acts of vandalism and use of company assets for personal use, were not substantiated. The affidavit made by one employee regarding the alleged act of vandalism was insufficient to establish the petitioner's guilt. Therefore, the dismissal of the petitioner from his employment was not justified.

  3. The Court recognized the complainant's claim that he was asked by his supervisor to test the video tape player. The supervisor's failure to deny this claim supports the complainant's argument. Furthermore, the supervisor deemed the act as a minor infraction, indicating that it was not worth the company's time and effort.

  4. The company rule on vandalism specifically prohibits unauthorized posting "in the Bulletin Board." Since the complainant posted a sign on an office door, which is different from a bulletin board, it can be argued that the act does not fall within the scope of the rule on vandalism.

  5. Even assuming that the complainant committed the alleged infractions, they are considered minor violations that do not warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal. The Court emphasized the need for restraint in terminating workers, as losing their jobs can have severe consequences for them and their families.

  6. The penalty of dismissal imposed on the complainant is deemed too harsh and unreasonable. The Court held that the penalty must be commensurate with the act, conduct, or omission of the employee. In this case, the alleged infractions were minor in nature, and the evidence presented did not fully demonstrate their violation of the rules and regulations. Therefore, the penalty of dismissal is unjustified.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Compliance with the two-notice requirement satisfies procedural due process.

  • The right to due process is not violated when a person voluntarily chooses not to provide their side of the case.

  • Dismissal from employment must be based on just and valid grounds, substantiated by evidence.

  • Extreme caution should be exercised in terminating the services of a worker, and the loss of a job should only be justified by serious, just, and lawful cause.

  • The penalty imposed on an employee must be proportionate to the offense, taking into account its nature and surrounding circumstances.

  • The cause for termination must be a serious and grave malfeasance to justify the deprivation of a means of livelihood.

  • Labor laws are guided by the social justice mandate in the Constitution and lean in favor of the working class.

  • Any doubt in the application of labor laws must be resolved in favor of the workers.