GOLDEN THREAD KNITTING INDUSTIRES V NLRC (MACASPAC)

304 SCRA 720

BELLOSILLO; March 11, 1999

NATURE
Petition to review decision of NLRC

FACTS
- several employees of Golden Thread Knitting Industries (GTK) were dismissed for different reasons. 2 employees were allegedly
for slashing the company’s products (towels), 2 for redundancy, 1 for threatening the personnel manager and violating the
company rules, and 1 for abandonment of work.
- The laborers filed complaints for illegal dismissal. They allege that the company dismissed them in retaliation for establishing and
being members of the Labor Union.
GTK, on the other hand, contend that there were valid causes for the terminations. The dismissals were allegedly a result of the
slashing of their products, rotation of work, which in turn was caused by the low demand for their products, and abandonment of
work. WRT to the cases involving the slashing of their products and threats to the personnel manager, the dismissals were in effect
a form of punishment.
- The labor arbiter ruled partially in favor of GTK. He said that there was no showing that the dismissals were in retaliation for
establishing a union. He, however, awarded separation pay to some employees.
- NLRC, however, appreciated the evidence differently. It held that there was illegal dismissal and ordered reinstatement.

ISSUE
WON there was illegal dismissal

HELD
YES
Ratio Dismissal is the ultimate penalty that can be meted to an employee. It must therefore be based on a clear and not on an
ambiguous or ambivalent ground.

Reasoning
- WRT to the case involving slashing of towels, the employees were not given procedural due process. There was no notice and
hearing, only outright denial of their entry to the work premises by the security guards. The charges of serious misconduct were not
sufficiently proved.
- WRT to the employees dismissed for redundancy, there was also denial of procedural due process. Hearing and notice were not
observed. Thus, although the characterization of an employee’s services is a management function, it must first be proved with
evidence, which was not done in this case. the company cannot merely declare that it was overmanned.
- WRT to the employee dismissed for disrespect, the SC believed the story version of the company (which essentially said that the
personnel manager was threatened upon mere service of a suspension order to the employee), but ruled that the dismissal could
not be upheld.
“the dismissal will not be upheld where it appears that the employee’s act of disrespect was provoked by the employer. xxx the
employee hurled incentives at the personnel manager because she was provoked by the baseless suspension imposed on her.
The penalty of dismissal must be commensurate with the act, conduct, or omission to the employee.”
- The dismissal was too harsh a penalty; a suspension of 1 week would have sufficed.
“GTK exercised their authority to dismiss without due regard to the provisions of the Labor Code. The right to terminate should
be utilized with extreme caution because its immediate effect is to put an end to an employee's present means of livelihood while
its distant effect, upon a subsequent finding of illegal dismissal, is just as pernicious to the employer who will most likely be
required to reinstate the subject employee and grant him full back wages and other benefits.

Disposition Decision AFFIRMED