San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC April 16, 2008 G.R. No. 146121-22 551 SCRA 410

Facts:

                Ernesto Ibias (respondent)  was employed by petitioner SMC as a CRO operator in its Metal Closure and Lithography Plant. He continuously worked therein until he advanced as Zamatic operator. He was also an active and militant member of a labor organization called Ilak Buklod Manggagawa (IBM)-SMC Chapter.

                According to SMC’s Policy on Employee Conduct, absences without permission or AWOPs, which are absences not covered either by a certification of the plant doctor that the employee was absent due to sickness or by duly approved application foe leave of absence filed atleast 6 days prior to the intended leave, are subject to disciplinary action. The same Policy on Employee Conduct also punishes falsification of company records or documents with discharge or termination for the first offense if the offender himself or somebody else benefits from falsification or would have benefited if falsification is not found on time.

                Respondent incurred absences. For his absences on 2, 4 and 11 January and 28 and 29 April, he was given a written warning that he had already incurred 5 AWOPs. For his absences on 28 and 29 April and 7 and 8 May, he was alleged to have falsified his medical consultation card by stating therein that he was granted sick leave by the plant clinic on said dates when in truth he was not. Respondent was required to state in writing why he should not be subject to disciplinary action, he then submitted handwritten explanation to the charges.

                Not satisfied with the explanation, SMC conducted an administrative investigation. After the completion of the investigation, SMC concluded that respondent committed the offenses of excessive AWOP and falsification of company records or documents, and accordingly dismissed him. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against SMC.

Issue: WON Ibias was illegally dismissed.

Ruling:

                When SMC imposed the penalty of dismissal for the 12^th and 13^th AWOPs, it was acting well within its rights as an employer. An employer has the prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary for the proper conduct of its business, to provide certain disciplinary measures in order to implement said rules and to assure that the same would be complied with. An employer enjoys a wide latitude of discretion in the promulgation of policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of the employees.

                It is axiomatic that appropriate disciplinary sanction is within the purview of management imposition. Thus, in the implementation of its rules and policies, the employer has the choice to do so strictly or not, since this is inherent in its right to control and manage its business effectively. Consequently, management has the prerogative to impose sanctions lighter than those specifically prescribed by its rules, or to condone completely the violations of its erring employees. Of course, this prerogative must be exercised free of grave abuse of discretion, bearing in mind the requirements of justice and fair play.

                All told, we find SMC acted well within its rights when it dismissed respondent for his numerous absences. Respondent was afforded due process and was validly dismissed for cause.