FACTS:

Petitioner Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corporation (PAAUC) is a corporation led by petitioner Francis Chua as its President. Private respondent Rosalinda Cortez was employed as a company nurse of PAAUC until her termination on November 7, 1994.

On October 5, 1994, a memorandum was issued to Cortez, requiring her to explain within 48 hours why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for various offenses, including throwing a stapler at her superior, losing money entrusted to her, and falsifying her attendance record. Cortez refused to accept the memorandum, and she did not submit an explanation. Consequently, she was placed under preventive suspension from October 9, 1994, to November 7, 1994.

On October 20, 1994, while under preventive suspension, another memorandum was issued to Cortez, giving her 72 hours to explain her alleged failure to process the ATM applications of her co-employees. Cortez also refused to accept this memorandum.

Cortez submitted a written explanation regarding the loss of the money and the falsification of her attendance record. On November 3, 1994, she received a termination letter stating that she was dismissed from service for serious misconduct, gross and habitual neglect of duties, and fraud or willful breach of trust.

Cortez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of benefits, and damages against PAAUC and Francis Chua. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision upholding Cortez's termination and dismissing her claim for damages. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision and found PAAUC guilty of illegal dismissal. The NLRC ordered Cortez's reinstatement and the payment of back wages.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the NLRC denied. Thus, this petition for certiorari was filed, seeking to set aside the NLRC decision.

The main issues in this case are whether the NLRC erred in finding Cortez's dismissal illegal and whether she is entitled to damages if the illegality of her dismissal is proven.

The termination letter cited several charges against Cortez, including gross disrespect to her superior, loss of entrusted money, falsification of her attendance record, and failure to process ATM applications for her co-employees. Cortez denies some of the charges, claiming that her superior had been making sexual advances towards her, the money entrusted to her was not lost, the falsification of her attendance record was done with permission, and she had no knowledge of the alleged failure to process the ATM applications.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the act of private respondent in throwing a stapler and uttering abusive language towards the plant manager constitutes serious misconduct warranting dismissal.

2. Whether the act of private respondent in asking a co-employee to punch-in her time card constitutes serious misconduct warranting dismissal.

3. Whether the alleged failure of private respondent to process the ATM cards of her co-employees constitutes gross and habitual neglect of duties warranting dismissal.

4. Whether private respondent is entitled to moral and exemplary damages.

5. Whether the private respondent's act of throwing a stapler and uttering invectives on William Chua were justified as a reaction to his amorous overtures.

6. Whether there is a time limit for an employee to complain about sexual harassment through proper channels.

RULING:

1. The act of private respondent in throwing a stapler and uttering abusive language towards the plant manager may be considered as serious misconduct. However, for it to be a just cause for dismissal, it must have been done in relation to the performance of her duties as a nurse. Since her acts were unrelated to her duties and her identification card only disclosed her employment as a nurse, her dismissal on this ground is not justified.

2. The act of private respondent in asking a co-employee to punch-in her time card, although a violation of company rules, does not constitute serious misconduct. It was done in good faith and for the benefit of the company with the consent of the plant manager. Furthermore, it was her first time to commit such infraction in her five-year service with the company. Therefore, her dismissal on this ground is not justified.

3. The alleged failure of private respondent to process the ATM cards of her co-employees does not constitute gross and habitual neglect of duties. The delay in opening the accounts was not shown to be caused by her neglect or willful act. Furthermore, opening ATM accounts was not one of her primary duties as a company nurse. Therefore, her dismissal on this ground is not justified.

4. Private respondent is not entitled to moral and exemplary damages since she failed to prove that petitioner corporation acted with malice, bad faith, or in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner in terminating her services.

5. The Court ruled that the private respondent's act of throwing a stapler and uttering invectives on William Chua were not justified as a reaction to his amorous overtures. The gravamen of the offense in sexual harassment is the abuse of power by the employer, not the violation of the employee's sexuality. Any employee, male or female, may rightfully complain if the claim is well substantiated.

6. The Court ruled that there is no specific time limit for an employee to complain about sexual harassment through proper channels. The time to do so may vary depending on the needs, circumstances, and emotional threshold of the employee.

PRINCIPLES:

• Serious misconduct warranting dismissal requires that the misconduct be serious, relate to the employee's duties, and show that the employee has become unfit to continue working.

• Gross negligence implies a want or absence of slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care, and must be habitual to warrant removal from service.

• Willful breach of trust by an employee must be founded on facts established by the employer through clear and convincing evidence.

• Moral and exemplary damages may be awarded if the employer acted with malice, bad faith, wantonness, oppression, or malevolence.

• The offense in sexual harassment is the abuse of power by the employer, not the violation of the employee's sexuality.

• Any employee, male or female, may rightfully complain about sexual harassment if the claim is well substantiated.

• There is no specific time limit for an employee to complain about sexual harassment through proper channels. The time to do so may vary depending on the needs, circumstances, and emotional threshold of the employee.