G. R. No.

130957 - January 19, 2000

VH MANUFACTURING, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION and HERMINIO C. GAMIDO, Respondents.

FACTS:
Herminio Gamido was employed as a quality control inspector with the duty of inspecting LPB
cylinders for any possible defects. He was dismissed when he was allegedly caught by
petitioner’s company President for sleeping on the job, thereby violating Company Rule 15-b.
he was asked to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against him, to which he
promptly replied. Notwithstanding his reply, he was terminated. The Labor Arbiter found for
the company. The NLRC reversed the decision ordering petitioner to reinstate petitioner with
full backwages.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the act of Gamido in sleeping while in the job is considered a ground for his
valid termination

HELD:
N0. In termination disputes, the burden of proof is always on the employer to show that
dismissal was for a just and valid cause. Petitioner’s claim that private respondent slept on the
job was not substantiated by any evidence. In other cases, sleeping on the job was found as a
valid ground for dismissal because such cases involved security guards whose duly necessities
that they be awake and watchful at all times. While an employer is allowed a wide discretion in
the promulgation of company policies, such should be fair and reasonable. In this case, the
dismissal meted out on a private respondent for sleeping on the job appears to be harsh a
penalty.
While an employer enjoys a wide latitude of discretion in the promulgation of policies, rules
and regulations on work-related activities of the employees, those directives, however, must
always be fair and reasonable, and the corresponding penalties, when prescribed, must be
commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction. In the case at bar,
the dismissal meted out on private respondent for allegedly sleeping on the job, under the
attendant circumstances, appears to be too harsh a penalty,24 considering that he was being
held liable for first time, after nine (9) long years of unblemished service, for an alleged offense
which caused no prejudice to the employer, aside from absence of substantiation of the alleged
offense. The authorities cited by petitioner are also irrelevant for the reason that there is no
evidence on the depravity of conduct,25 willfulness of the disobedience, or conclusiveness of
guilt on the part of private respondent.27 Neither was it shown that private respondent's alleged
negligence or neglect of duty, if any, was gross and habitual.Thus, reinstatement is just and
proper.