TOTALITY OF INFRACTIONS DOCTRINE IN LABOR RELATION

2nd DIVISION G.R. No. 143511 November 15, 2010 PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, vs. JOEY B. TEVES, PERALTA, J.: review on certiorari

Petitioner argues that respondent's past infractions could be to justify respondnet's dismissal due to a subsequent similar offense and that respondent's absences without prior notice, despite previous disciplinary actions, should be considered in its totality and not in isolation .

There was no valid cause for respondent's dismissal.

Even assuming that respondent's absenteeism constitutes willful disobedience, it does not warrant his dismissal. Not every case of insubordination or willful disobedience deserves the penalty of dismissal. There must be a reasonable proportionality between the offense and the penalty.

Management has the prerogative to discipline its employees and to impose appropriate penalties,pursuant to company rules and regulations. But management prerogatives must be exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer’s interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws and valid agreements. While the employer has its own interest to protect, and may terminate an employee for just cause, such prerogative must be exercised without abuse of discretion, and tempered with compassion and understanding. The employer should bear in mind thatwhat is at stake is the employee’s very livelihood .

Respondent's absence from August 23 to September 3, 1990 was justified as there was prior notice. His absence from May 29 to June 12, 1991, although unauthorized, was not at all unjustified. Thus, his unauthorized and unjustified absence from February 11 to 19, 1991, which is his second unauthorized absence, does not merit the penalty of dismissal.

Where a worker has committed an infraction, a penalty less punitive may suffice.

Petitioner contends that respondent's length of service should be taken against him. The instant infraction committed by respondent during his eleven-year stay with petitioner did not involve the betrayal of petitioner's trust and confidence. Moreover, there was no basis for respondent's termination, on the ground that he had committed his third unauthorized absence within the three-year period as discussed earlier.

Since respondent was illegally dismissed , he is entitled to reinstatement, without loss of seniority rights and the payment of backwages from the time his compensation was withheld until his reinstatement on November 12, 1997. Sicne respondent's absence from February 11 to 19, 1992 was unjustified and unauthorized, his suspension for thirty days is in order. The amount equivalent to the thirty-day suspension, which respondent should have served for his absence on February 11 to 19, 1992, should be deducted from the backwages to be awarded to him.