Case Digest: Villarama v. NLRC & Golden Donuts, G.R. No. 106341, September 2, 1994

Labor Law | Employment of Women

Facts:

• Delfin Villarama was employed as the Materials Manager by Golden Donuts, Inc.
• Villarama was charged with sexual harassment by Divina Gonzaga, a clerk-typist assigned in his department, who later resigned due to the incident.
• Villarama, along with two others, invited the female employees of the Materials Department for dinner. After dinner, they allegedly took Gonzaga to a motel without her consent. She urged the company to investigate her allegations.
• Villarama voluntarily agreed to resign, but two days later sought reconsideration of his termination. Golden Donuts, Inc. denied his request and terminated his employment.
• Villarama filed an illegal dismissal case against Golden Donuts, Inc.

• Labor Arbiter: Ruled in favor of Villarama, stating that due process was not observed in his dismissal.
• NLRC: Reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

WoN there was valid cause to terminate petitioner. YES

Petitioner claims that his alleged immoral act was unsubstantiated, hence, he could not be dismissed. We hold otherwise. The records show that petitioner was confronted with the charge against him. Initially, he voluntarily agreed to be separated from the company. He took a leave of absence preparatory to this separation. This agreement was confirmed by the letter to him by Mr. Prieto dated August 7, 1989. A few days after, petitioner reneged on the agreement. He refused to be terminated on the ground that the seriousness of his offense would not warrant his separation from service. So he alleged in his letter to Mr. Prieto dated August 16, 1989. But even in this letter, petitioner admitted his "error" vis-a-vis Miss Gonzaga. As a manager, petitioner should know the evidentiary value of his admissions. Needless to stress, he cannot complain there was no valid cause for his separation.

Moreover, loss of trust and confidence is a good ground for dismissing a managerial employee. It can be proved by substantial evidence which is present in the case at bench. As further observed by the Solicitor General:

. . . assuming arguendo that De Jesus and Gonzaga were sweethearts and that petitioner merely acceded to the request of the former to drop them in the motel, petitioner acted in collusion with the immoral designs of De Jesus and did not give due regard to Gonzaga's feeling on the matter and acted in chauvinistic disdain of her honor, thereby justifying public respondent's finding of sexual harassment. Thus, petitioner not only failed to act accordingly as a good father of the family because he was not able to maintain his moral ascendancy and authority over the group in the matter of morality and discipline of his subordinates, but he actively facilitated the commission of immoral conduct of his subordinates by driving his car into the motel.

As a managerial employee, petitioner is bound by a more exacting work ethics. He failed to live up to this higher standard of responsibility when he succumbed to his moral perversity. And when such moral perversity is perpetrated against his subordinate, he provides justifiable ground for his dismissal for lack of trust and confidence. It is the right, nay, the duty of every employer to protect its employees from over sexed superiors.

To be sure, employers are given wider latitude of discretion in terminating the employment of managerial employees on the ground of lack of trust and confidence. 

We next rule on the monetary awards due to petitioner.

• P1,000.00 as penalty for non-observance of due process.
• Petitioner is not entitled to separation pay.
• Petitioner is not also entitled to moral and exemplary damages. 
• Petitioner is entitled, however, to his unused vacation/sick leave and proportionate 13th month pay, as held by the labor arbiter. These are monies already earned by petitioner and should be unaffected by his separation from the service.