PHILIPPINE AEOLUS AUTO-MOTIVE UNITED CORPORATION (PAAUC) and/or FRANCIS CHUA, vs.
NLRC and Cortez
Facts:
Petitioner is Francis Chua president of PAAUC; Respondent Cortez was the company nurse until her
termination.
On Oct 5, 1994 a memorandum was issued by Ms. Myrna Palomares, Personnel Manager of PAAUC,
addressed to Respondent Cortez to explain why she threw a stapler and hurled cuss words at her Mgr.
William Chua, lost the P1,488 entrusted to her, and asking a co-employee to punch-in her time card thus
making it appear that she was in the office in the morning of Sep 6 1994 when in fact she was not.
Respondent refused the memorandum, and did not submit the required explanation even though a co-
employee informed and discussed the memo with her. She was thus preventively suspended for 30 days.
On Oct 20, 1994, while R. Cortez was still under preventive suspension, another memorandum was
issued by the corporation giving her 72 hours to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken
against her for failing to process the ATM applications of her 9 co-employees with the Allied Banking
Corporation.
She also rejected the memo though it was read to her. Respondent, however, this time submitted a
written explanation with respect to the loss of the P1,488.00 and the punching-in of her time card by a co-
employee.
On Nov 3,1994, petitioner PAAUC terminated Respondent's employment contract, Cortez filed for Illegal
dismissal, non-payment of annual service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay and damages against
PAAUC and its president Francis Chua, in the NLRC who dismissed her claim at first, but reversed their
decision on appeal, finding the Corporation guilty of illegal dismissal.
Petitioner's MR was denied, hence, this petition for certiorari.
Issue: 1. Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in holding as illegal the dismissal of private
respondent
2. Whether she is entitled to damages in the event that the illegality of her dismissal is sustained.
Held:
1.) No. The Supreme Court, in a litany of decisions on serious misconduct warranting dismissal of an
employee, has ruled that for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal (a) it must
be serious; (b) must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and, (c) must show that the
employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.
The act of private respondent in throwing a stapler and uttering abusive language upon the person of the
plant manager may be considered, from a lay man's perspective, as a serious misconduct. However, in
order to consider it a serious misconduct that would justify dismissal under the law, it must have been
done in relation to the performance of her duties as would show her to be unfit to continue working for her
employer. The acts complained of, under the circumstances they were done, did not in any way pertain to
her duties as a nurse. Her employment identification card discloses the nature of her employment as a
nurse and no other.
The act of private respondent in asking a co-employee to punch-in her time card, although a violation of
company rules, likewise does not constitute serious misconduct. Firstly, it was done by her in good faith
considering that she was asked by an officer to perform a task outside the office, which was for the
benefit of the company, with the consent of the plant manager. Secondly, it was her first time to commit
such infraction during her five (5)-year service in the company. Finally, the company did not lose anything
by reason thereof as the offense was immediately known and corrected.
2.) Yes. The gravamen of the offense in sexual harassment is not the violation of the employee's sexuality
but the abuse of power by the employer. Any employee, male or female, may rightfully cry "foul" provided
the claim is well substantiated. Strictly speaking, there is no time period within which he or she is
expected to complain through the proper channels. The time to do so may vary depending upon the
needs, circumstances, and more importantly, the emotional threshold of the employee.
Respondent admittedly allowed 4 years to pass before coming out with the sexual harassment
allegations,
Sexual harassment is an imposition of misplaced "superiority" which is enough to dampen an employee's
spirit in her capacity for advancement. In this case, such grave abuse of superiority was clear when her
plant manager showed an obvious partiality for her which went out of hand when he started to make it
clear that he would terminate her services if she would not give in to his sexual advances.
Thus, for the anxiety, the seen and unseen hurt that she suffered, Ps should also be made to pay her
moral damages, plus exemplary damages, for the oppressive manner with which Ps effected her
dismissal from the service, and to serve as a forewarning to lecherous officers and employers who take
undue advantage of their ascendancy over their employees.
