PACIFIC MILLS, INC.

, petitioner,
vs.
ZENAIDA ALONZO, respondent.
G.R. No. 78090 July 26, 1991
Facts: Zenaida Alonzo was employed as a ring frame operator in Pacific Mills, Inc.
She was terminated due to the incident happened on September 22, 1982 when she
challenged Ernesto Tamondong, the company inspector in a fight and assaulted
him.
On September 30, 1982, Alonzo was given memo terminating her on the various
grounds: poor work, habitual absences and tardiness, wasting time, insubordination
and gross disrespect. There was no complaint or hearing prior to the dismissal. The
management considered it unnecessary since there is a provision in the company
rules and relations that fighting or attempting to inflict harm to another employee
will render the aggressor to outright dismissal. The company was only to present
evidence when Alonzo instituted complaint for illegal dismissal (and non-payment of
proportionate 13th month pay.)
The Labor Arbiter found that Alonzo had indeed verbally abused and struck
Tamondong. However, the arbiter held that Alonzo was entitled relief because the
penalty imposed was harsh and severe and the company failed to investigate the
complaint before the dismissal. The arbiter ordered Pacific Mills her reinstatement
without the loss of seniority rights and to pay her backwages.
On appeal, NLRC sustained the judgment but limited the award of backwages only
to 3 years.
Pacific Mills instituted special civil action of certiorari praying for nullification of the
judgment of NLRC having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion.
Issue: whether the dismissal of an employee for just and reasonable cause but
without prior due process should be maintained?
Held: the court held that while it is true that Alonzo was not afforded due process
prior to her removal, her continuance in the service is inimical to her employers
interest. Petitioner proved that the termination of Zenaida was justified because of
the violations she committed against the companys rules and regulations. And
citing San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC, the law in protecting the rights of the
laborer authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. And the
reinstatement of the employee would be unjust and oppressive on the part of the
employer.
Ruling: the petition is granted and the challenged decision of the respondent
Commission dated March 23, 1987 and that of the Labor Arbiter thereby affirmed,
are NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE. However, the petitioner is ordered to pay private
respondent a proportionate part of the 13th month pay due her, amounting to
P351.00 as well as to indemnify her in the sum of P1,000.00