FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 226885. January 9, 2017.]
LIBERTY COMMODITIES CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.ERLINDA SISON BULAONG, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 9, 2017which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 226885 — Liberty Commodities Corporation, petitioner, versus Erlinda Sison Bulaong, respondent. — The petitioner's motion for an extension of fifteen (15) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision and Resolution dated May 24, 2016 and September 5, 2016, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 141807, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. The Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the ruling of the NLRC, as affirmed by the CA, reducing the amount of P300,000.00 imposed on private respondent as deduction from her retirement benefit to the sum of P50,000.00. HTcADC
The CA correctly upheld the NLRC's finding, based on the evidence submitted by the parties, that private respondent's infraction should only be considered as simple negligence and not gross negligence; as such, the penalty of P300,000.00, taking into account private respondent's untarnished employment record and length of service to the company, was clearly disproportionate to the infraction committed and the lighter penalty of P50,000.00 is more just, if not humane.
Indeed, it has been judicially settled that while an employer has the prerogative to discipline an erring employee, such right must not be arbitrarily exercised and must yield to the constitutional precept guaranteeing full protection to labor. 1 Transgressions committed by an employee should merit only the corresponding sanction demanded by the situation. 2 Employer's rules or an agreement between an employer and his employees regarding dismissal does not preclude the State from inquiring on whether the strict and rigid application or interpretation thereof would be harsh to the employee. 3 Even when an employee is found to have transgressed the employer's rules, in the actual imposition of penalties upon the erring employee, due consideration must still be given to his length of service and the number of violations committed during his employ. 4 CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. and/or Lagdameo v. Panado, 524 Phil. 282, 304 (2006).
2.Id.
3. See Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. and/or Lagdameo v. Panado, id.; The Coca-Cola Export Corporation v. Gacayan, 653 Phil. 45, 69 (2010).
4.The Coca-Cola Export Corporation v. Gacayan, id.