G.R. No.

194884 October 22, Altiche, Imasen’s security guard on duty, making the commission of the act charged
2014 went to patrol and inspect the production impossible.
plant’s premises. When Altiche reached
IMASEN PHILIPPINE On October 22, 2002, Imasen issued the
Imasen’s Press Area, he heard the sound
MANUFACTURING respondents another interoffice
of a running industrial fan. Intending to
CORPORATION, Petitioner, memorandum8 directing them to appear
turn the fan off, he followed the sound
vs. atthe formal hearing of the administrative
that led him to the plant’s "Tool and Die"
RAMONCHITO T. ALCON and JOANN S. charge against them. The hearing was
section.
PAPA, Respondents. conducted on October 30, 2002,9 presided
At the "Tool and Die" section, Altiche saw by a mediator and attended by the
DECISION
the respondents having sexual intercourse representatives of Imasen, the
BRION, J.: on the floor, using a piece of carton as respondents, Altiche and Ogana. Altiche
mattress. Altiche immediately went back and Ogana reiterated the narrations in
We resolve in this petition for review on to the guard house and relayed what he Altiche’s handwritten report.
certiorari1 the challenge to the June 9, saw to Danilo S. Ogana, another security
2010 decision2 and the December 22, On December 4, 2002, Imasen issued the
guard on duty.
2010 resolution3 of the Court of Appeals respondents separate interoffice
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 110327. This CA On Altiche’s request, Ogana madea follow- memoranda10 terminating their services.
decision nullified the December 24, 2008 up inspection. Ogana went to the "Tool It found the respondents guilty of the act
decision4 of the National Labor Relations and Die" section and saw several charged which it considered as "gross
Commission (NLRC) in NLRC CA No. employees, including the respondents, misconduct contrary to the existing
043915-05 (NLRC CASE No. RAB IV-12- already leaving the area. He noticed, policies, rules and regulations of the
1661-02-L). The NLRC ruling, in turn, however, that Alcon picked up the carton company."
affirmed the December 10, 2004 that Altiche claimed the respondents used
On December 5, 2002, the respondents
decision5 of the Labor Arbiter (LA), as mattress during their sexual act, and
filed before the LA the Complaint11 for
dismissing the illegal dismissal complaint returned it to the place where the cartons
illegal dismissal. The respondents
filed by respondents Ramonchito T. Alcon were kept. Altiche then submitted a
maintained their version of the incident.
and Joann S. Papa (collectively referred to handwritten report6 of the incident to
as respondents). Imasen’s Finance and Administration In the December 10, 2004 decision,12 the
Manager. LA dismissed the respondents’ complaint
The Factual Antecedents
for lack of merit. The LA found the
On October 14, 2002, Imasen issued the
Petitioner Imasen Philippine Manufacturing respondents’ dismissal valid, i.e., for the
respondents separate interoffice
Corporation is a domestic corporation just cause of gross misconduct and with
memoranda7 informing them of
engaged in the manufacture of auto seat- due process. The LA gave weight to
Altiche’sreport on the October 5, 2002
recliners and slide-adjusters. It hired the Altiche’s account of the incident, which
incident and directing them to submit
respondents as manual welders in 2001. Ogana corroborated, over the
their individual explanation. The
respondents’mere denial of the incident
respondents complied with the directive;
On October 5, 2002, the respondents and the unsubstantiated explanation that
they claimed that they were merely
reported for work on the second shift – other employees were present near the
sleeping in the "Tool and Die" section at
from 8:00 pm to 5:00 am of the following "Tool and Die" section, making the sexual
the time of the incident. They also claimed
day. At around 12:40 am, Cyrus A. act impossible. The LA additionally pointed
that other employees were near the area,
out that the respondents did not show any grave or aggravated character that the would virtually gain from their infraction
ill motive or intent on the part of Altiche law requires. To the CA, the penalty of as they would be paid eight years worth of
and Ogano sufficient to render their dismissal is not commensurate to the wages without having rendered any
accounts of the incident suspicious. respondents’ act, considering especially service; eight (8) years, in fact, far
that the respondents had not committed exceeds their actual period of service prior
The NLRC’s ruling
any infraction in the past. to their dismissal.
In its December 24, 2008 decision,13 the
Accordingly, the CA reduced the The Case for the Respondents
NLRC dismissed the respondents’
respondents’ penalty to a threemonth
appeal14 for lack of merit. In affirming the The respondents argue in their
suspension and ordered Imasen to: (1)
LA’s ruling, the NLRC declared that comment21 that the elements of serious
reinstate the respondents to their former
Imasen substantially and convincingly misconduct that justifies an employee’s
position without loss of seniority rights
proved just cause for dismissing the dismissal are absent in this case, adopting
and other privileges; and (2) pay the
respondents and complied with the thereby the CA’s ruling. Hence, to the
respondents backwages from December 4,
required due process. respondents, the CA correctly reversed
2002 until actual reinstatement, less the
the NLRC’s ruling; the CA, in deciding the
The respondents filed before the CA a wages corresponding to the three-month
case, took a wholistic consideration of all
petition for certiorari 15 after the NLRC suspension.
the attendant facts, i.e., the time, the
denied their motion for
Imasen filed the present petition after the place, the persons involved, and the
reconsideration16 in its May 29, 2009
CA denied its motion for surrounding circumstances before, during,
resolution.17
Reconsideration19 in the CA’s December and after the sexual intercourse, and not
The CA’s ruling 22, 2010 resolution.20 merely the infraction committed.

In its June 9, 2010 decision,18 the CA The Petition The Issue

nullified the NLRC’s ruling. The CA agreed
Imasen argues in this petition that the act The sole issue for this Court’s resolution is
with the labor tribunals’ findings regarding
of engaging in sexual intercourse inside whether the respondents’ infraction –
the infraction charged – engaging in
company premises during work hours is engaging in sexual intercourse inside
sexual intercourse on October 5, 2002
serious misconduct by whatever standard company premises during work hours –
inside company premises – and Imasen’s
it is measured. According to Imasen, the amounts to serious misconduct within the
observance of due process in dismissing
respondents’ infraction is an affront to its terms of Article 282 (now Article 296) of
the respondents from employment.
core values and high ethical work the Labor Code justifying their dismissal.
The CA, however, disagreed with the standards, and justifies the dismissal.
The Court’s Ruling
conclusion that the respondents’ sexual When the CA reduced the penalty from
intercourse inside company premises dismissal to three-month suspension, We GRANT the petition.
constituted serious misconduct that the Imasen points out that the CA, in effect,
substituted its own judgment with its We find that the CA reversibly erred when
Labor Code considers sufficient tojustify
(Imasen’s) own legally protected it nullified the NLRC’s decision for grave
the penalty of dismissal. The CA pointed
management prerogative. abuse of discretion the NLRC’s decision.
out that the respondents’ act, while
provoked by "reckless passion in an Preliminary considerations: tenurial
Lastly, Imasen questions the CA’s award
inviting environment and time," was not security vis-à-vis management
of backwages in the respondents’ favor.
done with wrongful intent or with the prerogative
Imasen argues that the respondents
The law and jurisprudence guaranteeto discipline, dismissal and recall of character and not merely trivial or
every employee security of tenure. This workers.25 As a general proposition, an unimportant.29
textual and the ensuing jurisprudential employer has free reign over every aspect
Additionally, the misconduct must be
commitment to the cause and welfare of of its business, including the dismissal of
related to the performance of the
the working class proceed from the social his employees as long as the exercise of
employee’s duties showing him tobe unfit
justice principles of the Constitution that its management prerogativeis done
to continue working for the
the Court zealously implements out of its reasonably, in good faith, and in a manner
employer.30 Further, and equally
concern for those with less in life. Thus, not otherwise intended to defeat or
important and required, the act or conduct
the Court will not hesitate to strike down circumvent the rights of workers.
must have been performed with wrongful
as invalid any employer act that attempts
In these lights, the Court’s task inthe intent.31
to undermine workers’ tenurial security.
present petition is to balance the
All these the State undertakes under To summarize, for misconduct or improper
conflicting rights of the respondents to
Article 279 (now Article 293)22 of the behavior to be a just cause for dismissal,
security of tenure, on one hand, and of
Labor Code which bar an employer from the following elements must concur: (a)
Imasen to dismiss erring employees
terminating the services of an employee, the misconduct must be serious; (b) it
pursuant to the legitimate exercise of its
except for just or authorized cause and must relate to the performance of the
management prerogative, on the other.
upon observance of due process. employee’s duties showing that the
Management’s right to dismiss an employee has become unfit to continue
In protecting the rights of the workers,
employee; serious misconduct as just working for the employer;32 and (c) it
the law, however, does not authorize the
cause for the dismissal must have been performed with wrongful
oppression or self-destruction of the
intent.
employer.23 The constitutional The just causes for dismissing an
commitment to the policy of social justice employee are provided under Article The respondents’ infraction amounts to
cannot be understood to mean that every 28226 (now Article 296)27 of the Labor serious misconduct within the terms of
labor dispute shall automatically be Code. Under Article 282(a), serious Article 282 (now Article296) of the Labor
decided in favor of labor.24 The misconduct by the employee justifies the Code justifying their dismissal
constitutional and legal protection equally employer in terminating his or her
recognize the employer’s right and Dismissal situations (on the ground of
employment.
prerogative to manage its operation serious misconduct) involving sexual acts,
according to reasonable standards and Misconduct is defined as an improper or particularly sexual intercourse committed
norms of fair play. wrong conduct. It is a transgression of by employees inside company premises
some established and definite rule of and during workhours, are not usual
Accordingly, except as limited by special action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of violations33 and are not found in
law, an employer is free to regulate, duty, willful in character, and implies abundance under jurisprudence. Thus, in
according to his own judgment and wrongful intent and not mere error in resolving the present petition, we are
discretion, all aspects of employment, judgment.28 To constitute a valid cause for largely guided by the principles we
including hiring, work assignments, the dismissal within the text and meaning discussed above, as applied to the totality
working methods, time, place and manner of Article 282 of the Labor Code, the of the circumstances that surrounded the
of work, tools to beused, processes to be employee’s misconduct must be serious, petitioners’ dismissal.
followed, supervision of workers, working i.e., of such grave and aggravated
regulations, transfer of employees, worker In other words, we view the petitioners’
supervision, layoff of workers and the act from the prism of the elements that
must concur for an act to constitute between two consenting adults do not infraction, with like disregard for their
serious misconduct, analyzed and have a place in the work environment. employer’s rules, for the respect owed to
understood within the context of the their employer, and for their co-
Indisputably, the respondents engaged in
overall circumstances of the case. In employees’ sensitivities. Taken together,
sexual intercourse inside company
taking this approach, weare guided, too, these considerations reveal a depraved
premisesand during work hours. These
by the jurisdictional limitations that a Rule disposition that the Court cannot but
circumstances, by themselves, are already
45 review of the CA’s Rule 65 decision in consider as a valid cause for dismissal. In
punishablemisconduct. Added to these
labor cases imposes on our discretion. 34 ruling as we do now, we considered the
considerations, however, is the implication
balancing between the respondents’
In addressing the situation that we are that the respondents did not only
tenurial rights and the petitioner’s
faced with in this petition, we determine disregard company rules but flaunted their
interests – the need to defend their
whether Imasen validly exercised its disregard in a manner that could reflect
management prerogative and to maintain
prerogative as employer to dismiss the adversely on the status of ethics and
as well a high standard of ethics and
respondents-employees who, within morality in the company.
morality in the workplace. Unfortunately
company premises and during work hours,
Additionally, the respondents engaged in for the respondents, in this balancing
engaged in sexual intercourse. As framed
sexual intercourse in an area where co- under the circumstances ofthe case, we
within our limited Rule 45 jurisdiction, the
employees or other company personnel have to rule against their tenurial rights in
question that we ask is: whether the NLRC
have ready and available access. The favor of the employer’s management
committed grave abuse of discretion in
respondents likewise committed their act rights.
finding that the respondents’ act
at a time when the employees were
amounted to what Article 282 of the Labor All told, the respondents’
expected to be and had, in fact, been at
Code textually considers as serious misconduct,under the circumstances of
their respective posts, and when they
misconduct to warrant their dismissal. this case, fell within the terms of Article
themselves were supposed to be, as all
282 (now Article 296) of the Labor Code.
After due consideration, we find the NLRC other employees had in fact been,
Consequently, we reverse the CA’s
legally correct and well within its working.
decision for its failure to recognize that no
jurisdiction when it affirmed the validity of
Under these factual premises and inthe grave abuse of discretion attended the
the respondents’ dismissal on the ground
context of legal parameters we discussed, NLRC’s decision to support the
of serious misconduct.
we cannot help but consider the respondents’ dismissal for serious
Sexual acts and intimacies between two respondents’ misconduct to be of grave misconduct.
consenting adults belong, as a principled and aggravated character so that the
WHEREFORE, in light of these
ideal, to the realm of purely private company was justified in imposing the
considerations, we hereby GRANT the
relations.1âwphi1 Whether aroused by highest penalty available ― dismissal.
petition. We REVERSE the decision dated
lust or inflamed by sincere affection, Their infraction transgressed the bounds
June 9, 2010 and the resolution dated
sexual acts should be carried out at such of sociallyand morally accepted human
December 22, 2010 of the Court of
place, time and circumstance that, by the public behavior, and at the same time
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 110327 and
generally accepted norms of conduct, will showedbrazen disregard for the respect
REINSTATE the decision dated December
not offend public decency nor disturb the that their employer expected of them as
24, 2008 of the National Labor Relations
generally held or accepted social morals. employees. By their misconduct, the
Commission in NLRC CA No. 043915-05
Under these parameters, sexual acts respondents, in effect, issued an open
(NLRC Case No. RAB IV-12-1661-02-L).
invitation for othersto commit the same
SO ORDERED.