[ LABOR 2 | ATTY.
NOLASCO ] 1
01. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. vs. MA. CONCEPCION DEL ROSARIO
G.R. No. 157633, Sept. 10, 2014
Bersamin
Digest by: DOLAR
TOPIC: Termination by Employer; Substantive Due Process; Just Cause;
Serious Misconduct/Willful Disobedience
PARTIES:
Employer: Northwest Airlines, Inc.
Employee: Ma. Concepcion del Rosario
DOCTRINE:
When dismissing an employee based on serious misconduct, it is not enough
that the conduct of the employee was improper. The employer must show
that the same was serious, and that such seriousness warrants dismissal.
RECIT-READY: Respondent was a flight attendant at the Business Class
Section of Petitioner. Respondent got into an argument with another flight
attendant. Due to this, Petitioner terminated Respondent from service,
contending that arguing with another flight attendant constituted Serious
Misconduct. This prompted Respondent to file a case for illegal dismissal
against Petitioner. The SC ultimately granted the same, holding that a mere
argument is not serious enough to warrant the dismissal of Respondent.
FACTS:
 Respondent was one of Petitioner’s Manila-based flight attendants,
assigned to the Business Class Section.
 During boarding preparations, another flight attendant (Gamboa)
from the 1st Class Section sought to borrow a wine bottle opener
from Respondent.
 This caused Respondent to remark that “any flight attendant who
could not bring a wine bottle opener had no business working in 1 st
Class.”
 This remark resulted in a verbal confrontation between Respondent
and Gamboa. However, Asst. Base Manager Morales later pacified
the two.
 An investigation was later conducted by Petitioner’s Legal Counsel
and Head of its HR Department, which was attended by all the
parties.
 For her part, Respondent claimed that the incident was only an
animated discussion, not a fight.
 Sometime after the investigation, Respondent was informed of her
termination from service. Petitioner concluded that Respondent had
engaged in a fight, even if not physical contact occurred between the
two flight attendants. And that since fighting is strictly prohibited,
dismissal from service was justified.
 Respondent subsequently filed a case for illegal dismissal against
Petitioner.
 The LA ruled in favor of Petitioner.
 The NLRC reversed the decision of the LA, and ruled in favor of
Respondent. It had held that the incident could not be considered
fighting a fight refers to a hostile encounter, affray, or altercation.
o The NLRC further held that what had occurred between
Gamboa and Respondent was just an argument.
 The CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC.
ISSUE/S: Whether Respondent was illegally dismissed. – YES
HELD:
The Court affirms the decision of the CA.
RULE: Art. 297 of the LC provides: An employer may terminate an employee
for any of the following causes:
a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the
lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his
work;
b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by
his employer or duly authorized representative;
d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the
person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his
duly authorized representative; and
e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
For termination under Art. 297(a) to be valid, the misconduct or improper
behaviour must:
1. be serious;
2. relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and
3. show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the
employer.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
 [ LABOR 2 | ATTY. NOLASCO ] 2

IN THIS CASE: There is no doubt that the 2nd and 3rd elements were present
in Respondent’s case. However, the 1st element is lacking. A fight would
have been serious enough to entail termination. However, the facts of the
case do not establish that.

As established by jurisprudence, a fight is different from an argument. A fight

must involve physical combat between the opposing parties, not just merely
a verbal tussle or exchange of words.

Based on the foregoing, the incident involving Respondent and Gamboa

could not be considered a fight. What had occurred was merely an argument.
Further, the claim of Morales that Respondent challenged Gamboa to a brawl
or “sabunutan” could not be given credence as it is self-serving. Even
assuming arguendo that the incident was the kind of fight prohibited by
Petitioner's Rules of Conduct, the same could not be considered as of such
seriousness as to warrant Respondent's dismissal from the service. The
gravity of the fight, which was not more than a verbal argument between
them, was not enough to tarnish or diminish Petitioner’s public image.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, the Petitioner’s termination of Respondent from

service was illegal.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals
promulgated on June 21, 2002; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs
of suit.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019