G.R. No. 109609 - SEGUNDINO ROYO, GERMAN ROYO AND CIPRIANO ROYO, VS. THE HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION, STANDARD ALCOHOL, INC., AND RAMON CHUANICO.

Ruling

Accordingly they were dismissed by the company. On January 16, 1992, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision, [2] finding private respondents guilty of illegal dismissal. The dispositive portion of his decision reads: WHEREFORE, respondent Standard Alcohol is hereby ordered to pay complainants Segundino Royo, German Royo and Cipriano Royo their separation pay equivalent to one (1) month for every year of service, as well as their incentive leave pay for three (3) years and proportionate 13th month pay for 1990, computed as follows: 1. SEGUNDINO ROYO: a) Separation pay 10/1/78 - 2/28/90 = 11 years P100.00 x 26 x 11 = P28,600.00 b) Service Incentive Leave 1987 - P59.69 x 5 days = P288.45 1988 - P76.92 x 5 days = 384.60 1989 - P80.46 x 5 days = 442.30 1,115.35 c) 1990 Proportionate 13th month pay P100.00 x 26 days x 1.93/12 = 418.1 P30,133.51 2. GERMAN ROYO a) Separation pay 8/21/60 - 2/28/90 = 29 years P2,650.00/mo. x 29 mos. = P76,850.00 b) Service Incentive Leave 1987 - P69.23 x 5 days = P346.15 1988 - P84.61 x 5 days = 423.05 1989 - P96.15 x 5 days = 480.76 1,249.96 c) 1990 Proportionate 13th month pay P2,650.00 x 1.93/12 = 426.21 78,526.17 3. CIPRIANO ROYO a) Separation pay 9/8/71 - 2/28/90 = 11 years P90.00 x 26 days = P25,740.00 b) Service Incentive Leave Pay 1987 - P46.15 x 5 days = P230.75 1988 - P57.69 x 5 days = 288.45 1989 - P69.23 x 5 days = 346.15 865.35 c) 1990 Proportionate 13th month pay P90.00 x 26 days x 1.93/12 = P 376.35 6,981.70 TOTAL P135,641.38 Although three grounds were cited in private respondents Memo No. 1, initially suspending petitioners the Labor Arbiter considered only the first ground (i. e., "commission of a crime in company premises") in view of private respondents manifestation that petitioners had been dismissed only for "unruly behavior and disorderly conduct inside the office, not dishonesty." [3] With respect to this charge, the Labor Arbiter held that petitioners' misconduct was not so serious as to constitute a valid cause for termination of employment, because the charge was only a case for slight physical injuries. [4] The Labor Arbiter likewise ruled that the indefinite suspension of petitioners was a "virtual dismissal" which the company had imposed without due process and that the subsequent notice of investigation was a mere afterthought to cover up the lack of a previous hearing. In lieu of reinstatement and backwages, the Labor Arbiter ordered private respondents instead to pay petitioners separation pay in view of his finding that the relationship between the parties had been severely strained. Private respondents appealed, maintaining that petitioners had committed serious misconduct "in audaciously perpetrating [a] dastardly act right inside their offices, during office hours and in the very presence of other employees"; that petitioners had to be immediately suspended to secure the company's warehouse, because of highly inflammable products kept there; that it was never private respondents' inten