Top Form Mfg. Co., Inc. v. NLRC

Top Form Mfg. Co., INC.
v.
NLRC
G.R. No. 65706
December 11, 1992

FACTS:

Respondent Malubay was a head supervisor at Top Form manufacturing Inc. (petitioner). On January 10, 1981, private respondent and her co-supervisors were called to a meeting by Dickinson John, production Manager. Dickinson declared that he was not satisfied with the production output, berating private respondent and the other supervisors, "You are bullshits". "You Filipinos, get out, you are all lazy, you are like pigs, all of you go home. I do not want to see your face again."

As a result, respondent told and instructed her co-supervisors. "Huwag pumasok sa lunes para matauhan si Dickinson." Thus on the next working day, they absented themselves from work. However, on January 13, she and her companions reported for work. 

On January 16, 1981, petitioner filed an application for a clearance to terminate the services of respondent on the ground of "loss of management confidence." Private respondent was placed under preventive suspension leading to her termination. 

Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner. The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint. The NLRC, reversed the arbiter. MR was denied, hence the instant petition. 

ISSUE:

Whether the termination of employment of respondent was justified. 

RULING:

Yes. The Supreme Court held that the termination of her employment was justified. When an employee initiates and leads a boycott thereby disrupting and impairing company's operation, the termination of her employment is justified. 

The Labor Code, specifically Article 283, acknowledges the right of the employer to put an end to the covenant with the employee. It cannot be gainsaid, in this regard that the act of the private respondent in initiating and leading the boycott, thereby disrupting and impairing company operations, is sufficient reason for petitioner to lose its trust and confidence on private respondent, considering that the latter is a managerial employee of the company whose position carries the corresponding highest degree of responsibility in improving and upholding the interests of the employer and in exemplifying the utmost standard of discipline and good conduct among her co-employees. 

The employer has a distinct prerogative to dismiss the employee if the former has ample reasons to distrust the latter or if there is sufficient evidence to show that employee has been guilty of breach of trust. Even assuming that complainant was berated by her production manager, her remedy is not to sabotage or boycott company operations; she should have gone to higher management levels in order to redress her grievances.