philippine aeolus automotive united corporation v. nlrc
DESCRIPTION
Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corporation v. NLRCTRANSCRIPT
Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corporatoin v. NLRC
FACTS: Private respondent was a company nurse for the Philippine Aelous United Corporation. A
memorandum was issued by the personnel manager of petitioner corporation to respondent Cortez
asking her to explain why no action should be taken against her for (1) throwing a stapler at plant
manager William Chua; (2) fro losing the amount of Php 1,488 entrusted to her; (3) for asking a co-
employee to punch in her time card one morning when she was not there. She was then placed on
preventive suspension. Another memorandum was sent to her asking her to explain why she failed to
process the ATM applications of her co-employees. She submitted a written explanation as to the loss of
Php 1,488 and the punching in of her time card. A third memorandum was sent to her informing her of
her termination from service for gross and habitual neglect of duties, serious misconduct, and fraud or
willful breach of trust.
ISSUES:
1. W/N petitioner was illegally dismissed.
2. If such dismissal was illegal, W/N petitioner should be entitled to damages.
HELD:
1. Yes. The grounds by which an employer may validly terminate the services of an employee must be
strictly construed. As to the first charge, respondent claims that plant manager William Chua had been
making sexual advances on her since her first year of employment and that when she would not accede
to his requests, he threatened that he would cause her termination from service. As to the second
charge, the money entrusted to her was not lost, but given to the personnel-in-charge for proper
transmittal as evidence by a receipt signed by the latter. As to the third charge, she explains that she
asked someone to punch in her card as she was doing an errand for one of the company’s officers and
with the permission of William Chua. As to the fourth charge, she asserts that she had no knowledge
thereof. To constitute serious misconduct to justify dismissal, the acts must be done in relation to the
performance of her duties as would show her to be unfit to continue working for her employer. The acts
of did not pertain to her duties as a nurse nor did they constitute serious misconduct. However due to
the strained relations, in lieu of reinstatement, she is to be awarded separation pay of one month for
every year of service until finality of this judgment.
2. Yes. Private respondent admittedly allowed four years to pass before coming out with her employer’s
sexual impositions; but the time to do such varies depending upon the needs, circumstances and
emotional threshold of the employee. It is clear that respondent has suffered anxiety, sleepless nights,
besmirched reputation and social humiliation by reason of the act complained of. Thus, she should be
entitled to moral and exemplary damages for the oppressive manner with which petitioner’s effected
her dismissal and to serve as a warming to officers who take advantage of their ascendancy over their
employees.