FACTS: Petitioner was employed as production worker by respondent. Respondent was receiving information that many of its employees were using prohibited drugs during working hours and within the company premises. Another employee Loberanes was arrested by possession of shabu. In the course of police investigation, Loberanes implicated the petitioner that part of the money for buying the illegal drugs was given by him, and the illegal drugs purchased were for their consumption.
Respondent served a Memo for Explanation to petitioner for his alleged involvement in illegal drug activities and the petitioner was placed under preventive suspension for the period of 30 days. Petitioner failed to appear before the respondent’s legal counsel on the scheduled hearing date and to explain his side on the matter. Consequently, respondent, in a third letter, terminated the latter’s employment for using illegal drugs within company premises during working hours, and for refusal to attend the administrative hearing and submit written explanation on the charges hurled against him.
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondent before the Labor Arbiter, wherein the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision in favor of petitioner since the respondent failed to present substantial evidence to establish the charge leveled against the petitioner. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision, but the Court of Appeals reversed the Decisions of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC on the grounds of patent misappreciation of evidence and misapplication of law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the statement of the employee who was arrested for illegal drugs can be a ground for termination of the petitioner for just cause.
RULING: Yes, the statement of the employee who was arrested for illegal drugs can be a ground for termination of the petitioner for just cause.
The Supreme Court held that, Loberanes’s statements given to police during investigation is evidence which can be considered by the respondent against the petitioner. Petitioner failed to controvert Loberanes’ claim that he too was using illegal drugs. Records reveal that respondent gave petitioner a first notice giving him 120 hours within which to explain and defend himself from the charge against him and to attend the administrative hearing. There is no dispute that petitioner received said notice as evidenced by his signature appearing on the copy thereof. He also admitted receipt of the first notice in his Memorandum.
The charge of drug abuse inside the company’s premises and during working hours against petitioner constitutes serious misconduct, which is one of the just causes for termination. Misconduct is improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not merely an error in judgment. The misconduct to be serious within the meaning of the Act must be of such a grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. Such misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless, in connection with the work of the employee, constitute just cause for his separation.
In this case, despite his receipt of the notice, petitioner did not submit any written explanation on the charge against him, even after the lapse of the 120-day period given him. Neither did petitioner appear in the scheduled administrative hearing to personally present his side. Thus, the respondent cannot be faulted for considering only the evidence at hand, which was Loberanes’ statement, and conclude therefrom that there was just cause for petitioner’s termination.
