PAAUC VS NLRC (1967)
Petitioners: Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corporation and Francis Chua
Respondent: National Labor Relations Commission and Rosalinda Cortez
Special Civil Action
J. Bellosillo
Anti-Sexual Harrassment Act of 1995
FACTS:
● PAAUC- duly-organized corporation; Francis Chua- president of PAAUC; Cortez-
private nurse of PAAUC
● October 5,1994- PAAUC issued a memorandum asking Cortez to explain why no
disciplinary action should be taken against her for:
o Throwing a stapler and uttering invectives at her superior, a PAAUC plant
manager William Chua
o Losing the amount of Php 1, 488 entrusted to her by the same plant manager
o Asking a co-worker to punch her time card for her
● Memorandum was ignored by Cortez
● During the pendency of the case, she was placed on a 30-day preventive suspension
● While she was still under preventive suspension, PAAUC issued another memorandum,
asking her to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for
o Failing to process the ATM applications of her 9 co-workers
● Respondent again refused to receive the memorandum
● A third memorandum was issued, this time informing her of her termination on the
grounds of gross and habitual neglect of duties, serious misconduct, and fraud or
willful breach of trust
● Because of this, she filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal,
non-payment of annual service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay and damages
against PAAUC; the LA ruled in favor of PAAUC
● On appeal, NLRC reversed the decision, and ordered for Cortez’s reinstatement with
payment of backwages; hence, the instant petition
● Cortez’s defenses:
o As to the charge of throwing a stapler at William Chua: As early as her first year
of employment, Chua has already manifested a special liking for her; invited
her to go on dates; made sexual advances such as touching her hands,
putting his arms around her, running his fingers on her arms and telling her
she looked beautiful; threatened that she would be terminated if she did not
give in to his advances; one day, he transferred her belongings to a place with
no telephone and intercom, and this led to the argument described in the first
charge
o As to charge of losing money: Claims that she did not lose the money, she in fact
transmitted it to the company personnel-in-charge
o As to the charge of asking someone to punch her time card: Admitted to doing
so, but claimed that she was at that time doing an errand for one of the
company’s officers, and that William Chua gave permission for her to do so
o As to the charge of not processing ATM applications: No such task was entrusted
unto her; this was not part of her job as a nurse
ISSUE AND HELD:
● WoN the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in holding as illegal the dismissal of Cortez.
NO.
o For there to be a just cause for dismissal:
▪ It must be serious
▪ Must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties
▪ Must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for
the employer
o While the act of throwing a stapler at her superior constitutes serious
misconduct, it was not done in the performance of Cortez’s job as a nurse
o The act of asking someone to punch her card is not serious misconduct,
since it was done by her in good faith, it was her first time to commit such
infraction during her 5 years of service, and the company did not lose anything by
reason thereof
o The act of her not processing the ATM applications on time is also not
serious misconduct. It was proven that she did manage to open the account,
albeit belatedly. Mere delay is not enough to support a conclusion that she is
guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duties
o Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or
diligence, or the entire absence of care; the negligence, to warrant removal from
service, must not only be gross, but also habitual
● WoN Cortez is entitled to moral and exemplary in the event that the illegality of her
dismissal is sustained. YES.
o The gravamen of the offense in sexual harassment is not the violation of the
employee’s sexuality but the abuse of power by the employer
o There is no time period within which he or she is expected to complain through
the proper channels
o In moral damages, it is sufficient that the claiant has suffered anxiety, sleepless
nights, besmirched reputation, and social humiliation by reason of the act
complained of
o Exemplary damages are granted in addition to moral damages, as a way of
example or correction for the public good if the empoyer acted in a wanton,
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner
o The 5-year period wherein she suffered from her plant manager’s sexual
advances gave Cortez anxiety, seen and unseen hurt
o Her dismissal forom the service was also done in an oppressive manner
o Granting of exemplary damages also to warn lecherous officers and employees
who take undue advantage of their ascendancy over their employees
RULING:
● CFI ruling direct assault charges set aside; case remanded. Dismissal of acts of
lasciviousness charge affirmed.