TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT BY EMPLOYER a. Obra maintained that there was no wrongful intent on his part.
Inherent Right to Discipline is subject to reasonable state regulation in the exercise
of its police power
G.R. 220998 – HOLCIM PHIL. INC. v. RENANTE OBRA
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Respondent Renante Obra worked as a packhouse operator in one of Holcim's plants for
nineteen (19) years. One day, when he was about to leave the plant premises, the security
guard on duty, Kristian Castillo, asked him to submit himself and the backpack he was
carrying for inspection. Obra refused and confided to Castillo that he had a piece of scrap
wire in his bag and requested the latter not to report him. Obra asked Castillo if he could
bring the scrap wire outside the premises, and if this was not possible, he would return the
wire to the office. Castillo ignored these and decided to report him anyway. Obra was
preventively suspended and subsequently dismissed. The LA held that Obra was validly
dismissed, while the NLRC reversed. The Court decided that Obra was illegally dismissed,
but the court removed the payment of back wages since Holcim was in good faith in
dismissing Obra.
DOCTRINE
There is no question that the employer has the inherent right to discipline, including that of
dismissing its employees for just causes. This right is, however, subject to reasonable
regulation by the State in the exercise of its police power. Accordingly, the finding that an
employee violated company rules and regulations is subject to scrutiny by the Court to
determine if the dismissal is justified and, if so, whether the penalty imposed is
commensurate to the gravity of his offense
FACTS
1. Respondent Renante Obra ("Obra") worked as packhouse operator1 in the La Union
Plant of Holcim for 19 years since March 1994.
2. One afternoon in July 2013, around 4 PM, Obra was about to exit the plant when the
security guard on duty Kristian Castillo ("Castillo") asked him to submit himself and the
backpack he was carrying for inspection.
3. Obra refused and confided to Castillo that he has a piece of scrap electrical wiring in
his bag. He also asked Castillo not to report the incident to management.
4. Obra also clarified with Castillo if he (Obra) could bring the scrap wire outside the
premises, and if ever it is forbidden, Obra told Castillo that he himself would return such
scrap to his locker in the Packhouse Office.
5. Castillo did not agree. This prompted Obra to hurriedly go back to the office to deposit
said scrap wire.
6. Subsequently, Obra received a Notice of Gap five (5) days after, requiring him to show
cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him. Obra was also put on
preventive suspension for 30 days
7. Obra, in another statement, reiterated that he had no intention to steal and that the
scrap wire, which he he asked from a contractor, was for disposal anyway.
8. Holcim dismissed Obra in August 2013, stating that it found no merit in his claim that
he didn't know a gate pass was required to take out a piece of scrap wire, since he has
been working with Holcim for 19 years already.
9. Obra filed an MR with Holcim, and prayed for a lower penalty, considering his length of
service and his lack of intent to steal.
10. Holcim denied such MR.
11. Obra filed a complaint with the NLRC LA for illegal dismissal and money claims.
1
Basically, supervises the packing of cement powder to be sold
b. Holcim countered that Obra's taking of the wire for his personal use, without
authority from the management, showed his intent to gain. Moreover, he
refused to submit his bag for inspection and attempted to corrupt Castillo by
trying to convince him not to file a report. His guilt was also shown when he
hurriedly tried to return the scrap to his office.
12. The LA dismissed Obra's complaint, and ruled that he was validly dismissed from
service and not entitled to reinstatement, backwages or other money claims because
he committed the crime of theft.
13. The NLRC reversed the LA's ruling and held that dismissal from service was unduly
harsh since his misconduct was not so gross. In addition, Holcim did not even suffer
any damage since Obra didn't take the scrap outside the premises. Obra also did not
hold a position of trust and confidence. Also, his length of service was also considered.
14. The NLRC awarded separation pay instead of reinstatement, claiming strained relations
between employer and employee.
15. Holcim filed an MR but was denied. They therefore filed a petition with the CA.
16. CA dismissed such petition and upheld the decision of NLRC. The CA emphasized the
fact that Obra volunteered the information regarding the scrap to Castillo and offered to
return the same.
17. Holcim filed an MR but was denied.
18. Hence this petition.
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. WON Obra was illegally dismissed. – NO.
Supreme Court:
a. Employer has the inherent right to discipline but such right is subject to reasonable
regulation by the State in the exercise of its police power.
b. Misconduct is not so gross as to deserve dismissal. It is unduly harsh or oppressive.
i. Obra had a mistaken belief that they were allowed to take out scrap for disposal.
ii. Obra showed remorse for his mistake.
iii. Holcim did not suffer any damages.
iv. respondent deserves compassion and humane understanding more than
condemnation, especially considering that he had been in petitioner's employ for
nineteen (19) years already, and this is the first time that he had been involved in
taking company property
v. Obra is not a managerial employee regularly handling significant amounts of
property.
vi. Not considered serious misconduct under Article 297.
1. To constitute a valid cause for dismissal within the text and meaning of
Article 297 of the Labor Code, the employee's misconduct must be
serious, i.e., of such grave and aggravated character and not merely
trivial or unimportant, as in this case where the item which respondent
tried to takeout was practically of no value to petitioner.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED . The Decision dated February 13, 2015
and the Resolution dated September 7, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No.
136413 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION deleting the award of separation pay
and in lieu thereof, directing the reinstatement of respondent Renante J. Obra to his former
position without backwages. SO ORDERED.
1
OTHER NOTES
 Though the general rule is that an illegally dismissed person is entitlted to the
following: reinstatement, separation pay if reinstatement not viable, payment of
backwages in full
o Court did not award separation pay on the bare allegation that there were
strained relations – no proof was given
o Court also did not require the payment of backawges in full because
Holcim was in good faith when it dismissed Obra for misconduct.
 Cases cited by the Court which show that infractions committed by an employee
should only merit the corresponding penalty demanded by the circumstance:
o Sagales v. Rustan's Commercial Corporation
 Chief cook tried to take home a pack of squid heads which were
considered scrap goods
 was not dismissed. Served for 31 years already and the
incident was his first offense
o Farrol v. CA
 District manager of a bank incurred a shortage of PHP 50,985,
but was able to return the majority leaving a PHP 6995.37
balance.
 Was not dismissed as it was held to be "unduly harsh and
grossly disproportionate to infraction.
o Associated Labor Unions-TUCP v. NLRC
 Employee cought trying to take a pair of boots, empty
aluminium container, 15 hamburger patties
 Despite that, Court held that dismissal was too excessive.
 Worked for 2 years already and had no previous derogatory
record.

DIGESTER: Kim