Sei sulla pagina 1di 3

Marival Trading, Inc.

v National Labor Relations Commission June 26, 2007 Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals Chico-Nazario, J. Facts: 1. Ma. Vianney D. Abella (private respondent) worked as a chemist/quality controller at Marival Trading Inc (petitioner) for 8 years 2. After a staff meeting, Ma. Roxanney A. Manuel, Vice president and General Manager of Marival, requested two male employees to move some tables. Said employees placed Abellas belongings on one of the tables. 3. While Abella was attending to her things, her shoulder bag fell on the floor. Manuel took notice of this and asked Abella what the problem was. Abella expressed her resentment over the fact the employees were not informed first before their tables were moved. 4. 3 days later, Abella received a memo from Manuel directing her to explain within 24 hours why no disciplinary action should be imposed for her disrespectful insubordination and unprofessional conduct 5. Unconvinced by Abellas explanation, MARIVAL fired abella. 6. Abella filled a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter, alleging she was dismissed from work without just cause and without due process. According to the LA: a. MARIVAL had grounds to take disciplinary action against Abella b. Penalty of dismissal is too harsh considering it was respondents first offense. c. LA ordered Abella to be reinstated but without backwages. She is to be paid 13 month pay and unpaid salaries for the year 2000 as well. 7. Abella appealed to the NLRC a. NLRC dismissed appeal b. Act consituted serious misconduct c. Act do not constitute sufficient ground for dismissal 8. Motion for reconsideration was filed but was denied 9. Abella appealed to the CA a. Abellas behavior amounted to misconduct and disrespect in violation of company rules, but it was not so gross as to be meted the ultimate penalty of dismissal b. Petitioner awarded 10% on the total monetary judgment as attorneys fees c. MARIVAL ordered to reinstate Abella and pay salaries due her from May 30, 2001 until her actual reinstatement or

until judgment attains finality. 10. Motion for reconsideration was filed but was denied hence the case at hand. ISSUE: WON the CA erred in holding that the acts commited by Abella constituted mere misconduct for which the penalty of dismissal was too severe and ignored the rule that findings of fact of quasi judicial bodies like the NLRC, particularly when they coincide with those of the labor arbiter are accorded with respect and finality if supported by substantial evidence. HELD: NO 1. The CA can grant the Petition for Certiorari if it finds that the NLRC, in its assailed decision or resolution, committed grave abuse of discretion by capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence which is material or decisive of the controversy; and the CA cannot make this determination without looking into the evidence presented by the parties. Necesarrily, the appellate court can only evaluate the materiality or significance of the evidence, which is alleged to have been capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarded by the NLRC, in relation to all other evidence on record. 2. Misconduct has been defined as improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. The misconduct to be serious must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial and unimportant. Such misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the employees work to constitute just cause for his separation 3. 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 employees duties; and c. Must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer 4. In terminatin of employment disputes, the burden of proof is always on the employer to prove that the dismissal was for a just and valid cause. 5. This Court has upheld a companys management prerogatives so long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employers interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rightsof the employees under special laws and valid agreements. 6. The Court is wont to reiterate that while an employer has its own

interests to protect, and pursuant thereto, it may terminate an employee for a just cause, such prerogative to dismiss or lay off an employee must be exercised without abuse of discretion. 7. If doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. The employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause.