G.R. No.
L-69870, November 29, 1988
NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION (NASECO) AND ARTURO L. LOPEZ vs.
THE HONORABLE THIRD DIVISION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, MANILA AND EUGENIA C. CREDO
--
G.R. No. L-70295, November 29, 1988
EUGENIA C. CREDO vs.
NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION (NASECO) AND ARTURO L. LOPEZ
PADILLA, J.:
FACTS: Eugenio Credo was an employee of NASECO since 1975 up to 10 March
1980. She was the Chief of Property and Records. Sometime before 7
November 1983, Credo was administratively charged by Lloren (Manager of
Finance and Special Project and Reevaluation of NASECO) for not complying
with her memorandum to correct certain entries in the company’s Statement
of Billings. When Credo was called by Lloren to explain further said instructions
as to the correction, Credo showed resentment and behaved in a scandalous
manner uttering remarks of disrespect in the presence of her co-employees.
On 7 Nov 1983, Arturo Lopez (Acting General Manager of NASECO) called
Credo to explain her side and to explain to the NASECO’s Committee on
Personal Affairs regarding the administrative charges against her. After said
meeting, Credo was placed on a forced 15 day leave effective the next day.
Credo filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for placing her on forced
leave without due process.
While Credo was on forced leave, NASECO’s committee on Personal Affairs
deliberated the past acts of respondent. The Committee recommended for
Credo’s termination violating their Code of Discipline, to wit:
1. Any discourteous act to customer, officer, and employees of client
company or officer of the Corporation
2. Exhibit marked discourtesy in the course of official duties or use of
profane or insulting language to any superior officer.
3. Management has given due consideration to respondent’s scandalous
behavior several times
On Dec. 1, 1983, Credo was directed to explain her side however terminated
within same day. Notice of Termination given to her was dated November 24,
1983.
LA dismissed Credo’s complaint.
NLRC reversed LA’s decision. Reinstate Credo and award 6 months
backwages.
NASECO claims that NLRC has no jurisdiction over Credo as she is a
government employee and NASECO is a government corporation. Therefore,
should be governed by the Civil Service Law and not by the Labor Code as
provided by the 1987 Constitution. NASECO is a subsidiary government
corporation under the National Investment and Development Corporation
(NIDC), a subsidiary wholly owned by the Philippine National Bank (PNB).
THUS, THIS PETITION.
RELEVANT ISSUE AS TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (SYLLABUS)
WON THE NLRC HAS JURISDICTION TO ORDER EUGENIA CREDO’S
REINSTATEMENT? – YES.
RULING:
The 1987 Constitution provides that:
The Civil Service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and
agencies of the government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters.
At first glance, it would appear as if NASECO is subject to the Civil Service law
it being a government corporation. However, NASECO has no original charter
because it is only a subsidiary corporation of NIDC which is a subsidiary
corporation of the PNB. It has no original charter and does not fall under the
said provision of the 1987 Constitution. Thus, it is governed by the Labor Code
and not the Civil Service Law.
OTHER ISSUE/S:
(1) WON Petitioners violated the requirements mandated by law on
termination - NO
(2) WON Petitioners failed in the burden of proving the termination of Credo
was for a valid or authorized cause -YES
(3) WON NASECO condoned the previous alleged infractions committed
by Credo
(4) Termination of credo was for a valid or authorized cause.
DISCUSSSION/RULING:
1. Under the rules, two (2) written notices of dismissal before a termination
of employment can be legally effected. The idea behind the same is to
give the employee ample time to be apprised by particular acts or
omission for which dismissal is sought and to give her a chance to be
heard and defend herself. IN THE CASE AT BAR, NASECO failed to do the
same. The termination of Credo was only done within a day. She was
not given ample time to be heard. Supreme Court raised that the notice
of termination handed to her was dated 24 November 1983 while the
committee meeting with Credo was conducted on December, this
action implies that the petitioners already had made their decision
without hearing Credo and said meeting was only done for formality.
2. The reports submitted by Lloren stating that Credo acted with gross
discourtesy as well as in a scandalous conduct lacks merit. Reports failed
to show nor describe how the conduct was done by Credo.
3. Supreme Court ruled that NASECO condoned the actions of Credo.
There were instances were Credo allegedly reacting in a scandalous
manner an raised her voice and acted in an arrogant manner, however
no disciplinary measure was meted against her by the Administration,
but when Credo committed frequent tardiness she was reprimanded.
NASECO’s condonation was proven. NASECO even gave Credo salary
adjustment as she was rated very satisfactory as regards to her job
performance, particularly in terms of quality of work, quantity of work,
dependability, cooperation, resourcefulness, and attendance.
4. Considering that the acts of or omissions for which Credo’s employment
was sought to be legally terminated were insufficiently proved, as to
justify dismissal, Credo should be reinstated. Credo’s dismissal was
proven to be done without procedural fairness.
