Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corporation 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 coemployee 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 companys 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 employers 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 petitioners affected her dismissal and to serve as a warming to officers who take advantage of their ascendancy over their employees.