Case Digest: KEPHILCO MALAYA EMPLOYEES UNION and LEONILO BURGOS v. KEPCO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION

KEPHILCO MALAYA EMPLOYEES UNION and LEONILO BURGOS v. KEPCO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION

526 SCRA 205 (2007)

In order for misconduct to be serious, it should be grave and aggravated in character.

Leonilo Burgos (Burgos) was hired as a turbine operator of KEPCO Philippines Corporation (KEPCO). Four years later, he became the president of co-petitioner Kephilco Malaya Employees Union (the union), the certified collective bargaining agent of KEPCO’s rank-and-file employees.

The president of KEPCO visited the plant site and granted the employees the sum of US$1,000 as a sign of goodwill, which amount Burgos accepted in his capacity as union president. At the general member’s meeting, Burgos was overheard to say that the company offered him P700,000 in exchange of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which he refused to accept. After KEPCO learned of Burgos’ remarks, an initial investigation was conducted, the results of which became the basis of the filing of an administrative charge against Burgos for violating Section 7.34 of Company Code of Employee Discipline (disseminating communications which tend to discredit or cause damage to the company, its officers or its employees).

After notice and hearing, KEPCO found Burgos guilty of violating Section 7.34, which is punishable by outright dismissal. KEPCO accordingly terminated his employment. Conciliation before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board having failed, Burgos filed on a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, and damages. The Labor Arbiter upheld the legality of the dismissal. On appeal, NLRC reversed the decision and ordered Burgos’ reinstatement. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Burgos’ remarks in the course of a union meeting constitute serious misconduct to warrant his dismissal from employment

HELD:

Serious misconduct is defined as the 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 of judgment. To be serious within the meaning and intendment of the law, the misconduct must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant.

The labor arbiter observed that Burgos’ remarks could spark unrest of dire consequences and ignite a nationwide dispute of disastrous effects. Other than the irrelevant fact that preventive mediation failed, however, the labor arbiter cited no substantial evidence to support the sweeping conclusion.

In reversing the labor arbiter’s decision, the NLRC found that in making the questioned remarks, Burgos could have sought to prove his sincerity to the union members and disabuse their minds of any allusion of misappropriation by laying stress on his personal disinterest in pecuniary matters and by citing, in the interest of transparency, what he must have believed was an attempt at subornation, which he deemed put his integrity to the test.

Moreover, serious misconduct requires a wrongful intent, the presence of which this Court fails to appreciate, the controversial remarks having been uttered in the course of a legitimate union meeting over which Burgos presided as head.

The magnitude of the infraction must thus be weighed and equated with the penalty prescribed and must be commensurate thereto. Where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may have been committed by the employee ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe such as dismissal from employment.