HA YUAN RESTAURANT vs. NLRC

HA YUAN RESTAURANT vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 147719 - January 27, 2006

FACTS:

Respondent Juvy Soria worked as a cashier in petitioner’s establishment located inside the SM Food Court Makati. On January 11, 1998, respondent assaulted her co-worker Ma. Teresa Sumalague resulting in a scuffle between the two. Despite the intervention of their supervisor Fiderlie Recide, they were not pacified, prompting Recide to call for security assistance. The two were then brought to the SM Food Court Administration Office where they continued to cast tirades at each other notwithstanding the request of SM Food Court Manager to stop. Because they refused to be mollified, they were brought to the Customer Relations Office for further investigation. As a result of the incident, the SM Food Court Manager banned the two from working within the SM Food Court’s premises.

Respondent then filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal, salary differentials, service incentive leave, separation pay and damages. It was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter for lack of merit in a Decision dated December 4, 1998. On appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the Labor Arbiter’s decision was affirmed with the modification that respondent was awarded separation pay. This prompted petitioner to file a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, and in its Decision dated March 30, 2001, it affirmed the NLRC’s decision and dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Hence, herein petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is entitled to separation pay.

RULING:

No.

Separation pay depends on the cause of dismissal, and may be accordingly awarded provided that the dismissal does not fall under either of the two circumstances: (1) there was serious misconduct, or (2) the dismissal reflected on the employee’s moral character.

The Court holds that respondent’s cause of dismissal in this case amounts to a serious misconduct and as such, separation pay should not have been awarded to her.

While it is true, as respondent contends, that the Labor Arbiter did not tag her cause of dismissal as serious misconduct, nevertheless, it is its nature, not its label that characterizes the cause as serious misconduct. There is no question as regards the incident that caused respondent’s dismissal. While respondent’s co-worker Sumalague was eating at the back of the store, respondent rushed toward Sumalague and hit the latter on the face causing injuries. A scuffle ensued and despite their supervisor Recide’s pleas, the two continued to fight, prompting Recide to call the mall security. When the two were brought to the administration office, they continued bickering and did not heed the request of the manager to stop, and thus they were brought to the Customer Relations Office. Because of the incident, the two were banned from working within the premises. The fact that Sumalague sustained injuries is a matter that cannot be taken lightly. Moreover, the incident disturbed the peace in the work place, not to mention that respondent and Sumalague committed breach of its discipline. Clearly, respondent committed serious misconduct within the meaning of Art. 282 of the Labor Code, providing for the dismissal of employees.