[ LABOR 2 | ATTY.
NOLASCO ] 1
6. Holcim Phils. v. Obra
G.R. No. 220998, August 8, 2016 
Ponente: Perlas-Bernabe, J
Digest by: Bacina
TOPIC: Serious Misconduct/Willful Disobedience
PARTIES:
Employer: Holcim
Employee: Obra
DOCTRINE:
Infractions committed by an EE should merit only the corresponding penalty
demanded by the circumstance. The penalty must be commensurate with the act,
conduct, or omission imputed to the EE.
RECIT-READY:
 Respondent Obra was an EE of petitioner as packhouse operator for 19 years
already. One day, when respondent was about to exit Gate 2 from the
company premises, security guard Castillo asked respondent to submit
himself and his bag for inspection. The latter refused and said that his bag
only contained scrap electrical wire. He also said to Castillo not to report this
to management and asked Castillo if he could bring the scrap wire outside
the company premises because if not, he would return it now in the office.
Castillo didn’t agree with him. So this incident was reported to management
where respondent was made to explain.
 Eventually, it resulted to respondent’s dismissal, for serious misconduct, by
petitioner. Respondent tried to reason with petitioner that dismissal was too
harsh as he had no intent to steal, he worked for petitioner for 19 years
already  , and that he was remorseful for what he did. He also said that he
asked the contractor if he could get the scrap wire because it was to be
disposed anyway, and that there’s no damage to petitioner as the scrap wire
was of no value to it.
 LA ruled for petitioner.
 NLRC and CA for respondent.
 CA awards full backpay in lieu of reinstatement.
 SC partly grants petitioner’s petition with respect to the award of full
backpay in lieu of reinstatement.
 SC said respondent didn’t occupy a position with trust and confidence, he
is not a managerial EE. Respondent was a mere packhouse operator with
limited duties. Plus, taking into account that he was remorseful for this
incident, and that he worked for petitioner for 19 years already,
respondent’s act didn’t amount to gross misconduct that would warrant
dismissal as penalty. It should be lower than that, so, dismissal was invalid.
SC ordered reinstatement w/o backpay.
FACTS:
 Respondent Renante Obra was employed by petitioner as packhouse
operator in its La Union Plant for 19 years (March 19, 1994-Aug. 8, 2013).
As packhouse operator, he ensures the safe and efficient operation of
rotopackers, auto-bag placers, and cariramats, as well as their auxiliaries.
At the time of his dismissal, he was earning P29,998 per month.
 On July 10, 2013, at around 4pm, respondent was about to exit Gate 2 of
petitioner’s La Union Plant when the security guard on duty, Kristian
Castillo, asked him to submit himself and the backpack he was carrying for
inspection.
 But respondent refused and said that it was only a piece of scrap electrical
wire that was in his bag. He also requested Castillo not to report the
incident to the management, and asked Castillo if he could bring the scrap
wire outside the company premises; otherwise, he will return it to his
locker in the Packhouse Office.
 Castillo didn’t agree. This prompted respondent to turn around and
hurriedly go back to the office where he took the scrap wire out of his bag.
Thereafter, another security guard arrived and directed him to go to the
Security Office where he was asked to write a statement regarding the
incident.
 In respondent’s statement, he admitted the incident, but asserted that he
had no intention to steal. The 16-meter electrical wire was a mere scrap
that he had asked from the contractor who removed it from the Packhouse
Office. He also averred that as far as he knows, only scrap materials which
are to be taken out of the company premises in bulk required a gate pass
and that he had no idea that it was also necessary to takeout a piece of
loose, scrap wire out of the company's premises. Respondent also clarified
that he hurriedly turned around because he had decided to just return the
scrap wire to the said office.
 On July 16, 2013, respondent received a Notice of Gap requiring him to
explain within 5 days therefrom why no disciplinary action, including
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

termination, should be taken against him on account of the incident. He
was also placed on preventive suspension for 30 days effective
immediately.
 In a July 23, 2013 statement, he reiterated that he had no intent to steal
from petitioner the object which he had asked from a contractor was
already for disposal anyway. He also expressed his remorse over the
incident and asked that he be given a chance to correct his mistake.
Meetings of petitioner's Review Committee were thereafter conducted,
with respondent and the security guards concerned in attendance.
 On Aug. 8, 2013, petitioner issued a decision/resolution memo dismissing
respondent from service for serious misconduct.
 Respondent then sought reconsideration and prayed for a lower penalty,
considering his length of service and lack of intent to steal. But petitioner
denied his appeal. Hence, this prompted respondent to file for illegal
dismissal and money claims with the NLRC on Sept. 30, 2013.
 Labor Arbiter – Dismissed respondent’s complaint. He was validly dismissed
for committing the crime of theft, thus, not entitled to reinstatement,
backwages, other money claims.
 NLRC – Reversed LA’s ruling:
1. Penalty of dismissal was harsh since his misconduct was not so
gross to deserve such penalty;
2. Found merit in respondent’s defense that he took the object on the
belief that it was already for disposal, noting that petitioner never
denied this;
3. Also, petitioner didn’t suffer any damage since respondent was not
able to take the wire outside the company premises;
4. Moreover, he didn’t hold a position of trust and confidence and
was remorseful of his mistake, as evidenced by his repeated pleas
for another chance; and
5. Coupled with the fact of 19 years in petitioner’s employ,
respondent’s dismissal is excessive and harsh. Hence, separation
pay is awarded in lieu of reinstatement.
 CA – Affirmed NLRC’s ruling
ISSUE/S: WON CA erred in affirming NLRC’s ruling
HELD: YES. Petition is partly meritorious.
 There’s no question that the ER has the inherent right to discipline, including
that of dismissing its EEs for just causes. But this right is subject to
[ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 2
reasonable regulation by the State in the exercise of its police power. The
finding that an EE violated company rules and regulations is subject to
scrutiny by the Court to determine if the dismissal is justified and, if so,
whether penalty imposed is commensurate to the gravity of his offense.
 Here, the Supreme Court agrees with the CA and NLRC that respondent’s
misconduct is not so gross as to deserve dismissal from service. As ruled by
the NLRC, while there’s no dispute that respondent took a piece of wire from
petitioner's La Union Plant and tried to bring it outside the company
premises, he did so in the belief that the same was already for disposal.
Petitioner never denied that the piece of wire was already for disposal and,
hence, practically of no value. At any rate, petitioner did not suffer any
damage from the incident, given that after being asked to submit himself
and his bag for inspection, respondent had a change of heart and decided to
just return the wire to the Packhouse Office. Respondent has also shown
remorse for his mistake, pleading repeatedly with petitioner to reconsider
the penalty imposed upon him.
 Court ruled that infractions committed by an EE should merit only the
corresponding penalty demanded by the circumstance. The penalty must
be commensurate with the act, conduct, or omission imputed to the EE.
 Besides, respondent did not occupy a position of trust and confidence, the
loss of which would have justified his dismissal over the incident. As
packhouse operator, respondent's duties are limited to ensuring the safe
and efficient operation of rotopackers, auto-bag placers, and cariramats, as
well as their auxiliaries. He is not a managerial EE vested with the powers or
prerogatives to lay down management policies and to hire, transfer,
suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline EEs or effectively
recommend such managerial actions, or one who, in the normal and routine
exercise of his functions, regularly handles significant amounts of money or
property.
 Neither can respondent’s infraction be characterized as a serious
misconduct which, under LC282 (Now LC297), is a just cause for dismissal.
Misconduct is an improper or wrong conduct, or a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty,
willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in
judgment.
 To constitute a valid cause for dismissal within the text and meaning of
LC282 (Now LC297), the EE's misconduct must be serious, i.e., of such grave
and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant, as in this
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
 [ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 3

case where the item which respondent tried to takeout was practically of no
value to petitioner. Moreover, ill will or wrongful intent cannot be ascribed
to respondent, considering that, while he asked Castillo not to report the
incident to the management, he also volunteered the information that he
had a piece of scrap wire in his bag and offered to return it if the same
could not possibly be brought outside the company premises sans a gate
pass.
 In fine, the dismissal imposed as penalty was unduly harsh and excessive.
The CA didn’t err in affirming NLRC’s ruling that respondent’s dismissal was
invalid.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019