Ma. Liza de Guzman v. National Labor Relations Commission and Rex Bookstore, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ma. Liza de Guzman (DE GUZMAN) was employed by respondent Rex Bookstore, Inc. (REX) as a cashier. On August 5, 1995, DE GUZMAN made a double payment to a book agent, paying P5,520.00 instead of P2,760.00 for a single transaction. This incident stemmed from a sales clerk issuing two unofficial receipts for the same transaction, which the agent presented to DE GUZMAN. DE GUZMAN claimed she paid the total amount after the agent affirmed two deliveries, and that she did not have the opportunity to verify with the sales clerk due to numerous customers. Procedural History: REX suspended DE GUZMAN for 30 days pending investigation and subsequently dismissed her on September 18, 1995, for alleged dereliction of duty. DE GUZMAN filed a complaint for illegal suspension, which was amended to include illegal dismissal, thirteenth-month pay, attorney's fees, actual, moral, and exemplary damages. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of DE GUZMAN, ordering reinstatement with full back wages and attorney's fees. REX appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC modified the decision, ordering separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and deleting the award of back wages and attorney's fees, rationalizing that while DE GUZMAN was negligent, her dismissal was too harsh, and the period of her absence would serve as her penalty. DE GUZMAN's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: DE GUZMAN filed a special civil action for certiorari, assailing the NLRC's decision for committing grave abuse of discretion in deleting the award of back wages despite affirming the illegality of her dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in modifying the Labor Arbiter's decision by deleting the award of back wages despite finding the dismissal illegal, and whether DE GUZMAN is entitled to back wages despite her admitted negligence. On the computation of back wages.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The assailed decision and resolution of the NLRC are affirmed with modification. REX is ordered to pay DE GUZMAN full back wages from the time of her dismissal until the finality of this decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to back wages despite negligence: The Court found merit in the petition, holding that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The general rule is that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement and back wages. While DE GUZMAN admitted to an error in judgment in paying the agent without verifying the receipts, the Court found that this negligence did not warrant the complete denial of back wages. The Court noted that there was no deliberate intent to prejudice the company and that the error was not solely DE GUZMAN's fault. The sales clerk who issued two receipts contrary to company procedure and the agent's misrepresentation also contributed to the incident. Furthermore, this was DE GUZMAN's first infraction of this nature, and her length of service (since 1989) should be considered. The Court reiterated that dismissal is too harsh a penalty for a first offense committed without malice, especially when the employee is not solely responsible. The NLRC's deletion of back wages was deemed too harsh and disproportionate to the offense committed, especially considering the constitutional policy to resolve doubts in favor of labor. The Court emphasized that the employer's right to discipline must be exercised humanely and the penalty must be commensurate to the offense, considering the employee's livelihood and family. On the computation of back wages: Since separation pay was awarded in lieu of reinstatement, the back wages must be computed from the time of DE GUZMAN's illegal dismissal until the finality of the decision.
Main Doctrine
Where there is a finding of illegal dismissal, an employee is generally entitled to reinstatement and back wages. However, the award of back wages may be denied as a penalty for misconduct or infractions, provided it is commensurate with the offense and not too harsh or disproportionate, considering the employee's length of service, the number of violations, and the circumstances surrounding the case.