44. North Camarines Lumber vs Francisco Barreda, G.R. No. 75436 FAC !

: The Ministry of Labor and Employment in its order dated May 31, 1985 ordered North Camarines Lumber Company, n!" to reinstate #ran!is!o $arreda to his former position %ithout loss of seniority ri&hts and to pay him ba!'%a&es for t%o years %ithout redu!tion or (ualifi!ation" North Camarines Lumber Co", n!" in the instant petition for !ertiorari dated )pril *5, 198+ as'ed that the M,LE order be re-ersed and the dismissal of $arreda upheld" $arreda %as employed as a s!aler by petitioner !ompany in 19+3" n 19.8, he be!ame super-isor of the fell and bu!' se!tion" ,n /anuary *5, 19.9, petitioner issued "emo "#$%&7', %hi!h pro-ide that 0e-ery employee must !omply stri!tly %ith the !ompany rules and re&ulations" The penalty for the third offense durin& the year is separation from the ser-i!e, re&ardless of %hether the first t%o offenses %ere penali1ed by %arnin&, reprimand or suspension"2 t appears that in 19.9 $arreda !ommitted t%o offenses for %hi!h he %as suspended for a total of t%enty days" ,n ,!tober *1, 19.9, a 3unday, he !ommitted the alle&ed unpardonable third offense" 4e fi&ured in a bo5in& in!ident %ith #ernando #ernande1, a se!urity &uard of petitioner" The in!ident, as admitted by petitioner, o!!urred in the store of one #loriano $arreda lo!ated %ithin the !ompany au5iliary !ompound %here the -eneer plant proper and the residential houses of petitioner6s staff offi!ers are situated" The store is appro5imately fifteen meters from the north &ate of the !ompound" The follo%in& day, petitioner addressed a memorandum to $arreda terminatin& him for ha-in& assaulted a fello% employee %ithout suffi!ient pro-o!ation and pla!in& him under suspension pendin& !learan!e from the Ministry of Labor" 7etitioner filed %ith the M,LE an appli!ation for !learan!e to terminate $arreda6s employment" The re&ional dire!tor &ranted the re(uired !learan!e but on appeal the M,LE set it aside and issued the order sub8e!t of this petition" (!!)*: 9,N the M,LE erred orderin& the reinstatement of $arreda %ith ba!'%a&es !onsiderin& said -iolation of the Memo" 4EL:: 9e hold that the M,LE did not !ommit any &ra-e abuse of dis!retion in orderin& the reinstatement of $arreda %ith ba!'%a&es" 9hether the third offense attributed to $arreda %as !omitted %hile the latter %as off duty and outside the !ompany premises is not the !ru!ial issue here" ;ather, it is the ine(uitable manner by %hi!h $arreda %as dis!har&ed" 9hile !on!edin& the employer6s basi! ri&ht to re&ulate the !ondu!t of its employees %hile inside !ompany premises, %e !annot help but noti!e the unusual 1eal and haste displayed by petitioner in applyin& the full for!e of its rules on $arreda" <ndoubtedly, the bo5in& episode %as !ompletely blo%n out of proportion" The fisti!uffs %ere plainly a pri-ate matter bet%een the t%o employees %hi!h had no apparent deleterious effe!t on the substantial interests of the !ompany" Considerin& $arreda6s len&th of ser-i!e %ith petitioner, !oupled %ith the attendant !ir!umstan!es, the penalty of dismissal %as !ertainly not !ommensurate %ith his alle&ed mis!ondu!t" 9e affirm his reinstatement %ith ba!'%a&es for t%o years"