G.R. No.

218172 March 16, 2016

UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs.
ELMER ABLAY et. al, Respondents.

FACTS
The respondents herein, members of a labor union, filed a complaint against petitioner
for non-compliance with a wage order before the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE). After due proceedings, the DOLE found petitioner liable and issued a writ of execution
to enforce the ruling.
The DOLE sheriff went to petitioner’s premises to serve the writ of execution. The
petitioner’s Personnel Manager refused to comply by reason of their pending appeal. Two (2)
months later, the sheriff went back to petitioner’s premises in another attempt to serve the writ
of execution. This time, with the help of the Union Officers, including respondents, effected a
levy on one of petitioner’s forklifts despite the refusal of the personnel manager to receive the
writ. The forklift was deposited at the municipal hall for safekeeping.
Due to the foregoing incident, petitioner issued a Notice of Offense to each of the
respondents, requiring them to explain in writing why no disciplinary action should be taken
against them on the charge of stealing company property, fraudulent acquisition of company
property and serious misconduct. After due investigation, petitioner found respondents guilty
and had them dismissed. The dismissal prompted the filing of illegal dismissal and unfair labor
practice against petitioners.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The NLRC affirmed the
arbiter’s ruling. Both agreed that the manner in which respondents assisted in the execution of
the writ was arrogant and unlawful and deemed the legality of their termination.
The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC ruling and declared respondents to have been
illegally dismissed. While the CA agrees with the finding that respondents violated company
rules in the manner by which they assisted in enforcing the writ of execution, such dismissal is
too severe as a penalty for the infraction.

ISSUE
1. Whether or not the act of respondents in assisting the enforcement of the writ of
execution constitutes serious misconduct and a valid ground for dismissal.

RULING
No. To constitute serious misconduct as a valid cause of dismissal, the concurrence of
the following elements is required: (a) the misconduct must be serious; (b) it must relate to the
performance of the employee’s duties showing that the employee has become unfit to continue
working for the employer; and (c) it must have been performed with wrongful intent.
In the case at bar, clearly, respondents committed some form of misconduct when they
assisted the sheriff in effecting the levy on the forklift and depositing the same to the municipal
hall for safekeeping as they operated the forklift and took it out of company premises, all without
the authority and consent from petitioner. However, respondents did not perform the said acts
with intent to gain or with wrongful intent. Rather, they were impelled by their belief that they
were merely facilitating the enforcement of a favorable decision in a labor standards case in
order to finally collect what is due them as a matter of right. In light of the foregoing, the Court
uphold the right of petitioner to take appropriate disciplinary action against respondents, but
nevertheless, holds that respondents should not have been dismissed from service. A less
punitive sanction like suspension would have sufficed.
.

Page 1 of 1