#26

Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corp (PAAUC) and/or Francis Chua vs. NLRC, Rosalinda Cortez
April 28, 2000,
Justice Bellosillo
Facts:
Respondent Rosalinda Cortes, the Company Nurse of petitioner PAAUC, was dismissed on the grounds of
gross and habitual neglect of duties, serious misconduct and fraud or willful breach of trust. These grounds are based
on the following charges which respondent failed to explain to petitioner:
1.
2.
3.
4.

That respondent threw a stapler against her Plant Manager William Chua
That respondent lost an amount of P1,488 that was entrusted to her by Chua
That respondent asked another employee to punch-in her time card
That respondent failed to process the ATM application of 9 of her co-employees.

Respondent filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal and payment of back
wages/damages. On the first charge, she explained that she did so because for the first four years of her employment,
she did NOT reciprocate the sexual advances and special favors of William Chua, when suddenly, the latter
threatened of her of the termination of her employment if she will not accede to his sexual advances. The stapler was
thrown during an argument when Chua caused the transfer of her work table equipped with telecom and intercom
units to another to a place without such equipment. On the second charge, she said that the money was properly
delivered to the Company. On the third charge, she admitted that she did so since she was doing an errand for
another Company Officer and that this was with the consent of Chua. On the fourth charge, she denied any
knowledge of the ATM application, since it not among those included in her job as a company nurse. The Labor
Arbiter denied the complaint but its decision was reversed by the NLRC.
ISSUE: Whether respondent was illegally dismissed and whether she is entitled to damages if she really was
illegally dismissed.
HELD:
Yes, the Court held that there was illegal dismissal. On the ground of serious misconduct, the cause of
dismissal must be serious; must relate to the performance of employees duties; and must show that employee is
unfit to continue working for the employer. In the instant case, the acts complained of do not pertain to her duties as
a nurse. It is not her primary duty as a nurse to open ATM accounts for employees.
The Court also held that for negligence to warrant dismissal, it must not merely be gross, but also habitual.
In the instant case, when she asked another to punch-in her time card, she did so in good faith since he was asked by
another officer to perform a task outside of office. She did so for the first time in her five year of service for the
company. There was also no finding of willful breach of trust.
The Court also dismissed the view of petitioner that she is not entitled of payment of damages since she
failed to prove the existence of bad faith and for her failure to complain the alleged sexual harassment in her 1 st four
years of employment. The Court ruled that the gravamen of the offense of sexual harassment is NOT the
violation of sexuality but the abuse of power by the employer. Any employee, male or female may rightfully cry
foul provided the claim is well substantiated. There is no time period within which the employee is to complain
through the proper channels. In the instant case, the court explained that respondents anxiety was building up over
the four years of her employment, which she finally vented up her anger when the petitioner found a way to
terminate her. Chua must have thought that since he had no place in private respondents heart, then she have no
place in his office. The anxiety caused by the sexual harassment and the oppressive manner of her dismissal entitle
private respondent to moral and exemplary damages.