PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL INC. VS.

NLRC

FACTS:

Edilberto M. Alvarez, a Steam Test Operator II in the Philippine Geothermal Inc., was injured
during line of work. As a result, Alvarez was placed in a plaster cast and was confined at San Pablo
Doctor’s Hospital.

Philippine Geothermal Inc. gave Alvarez (50) days “work-connected accident” (WCA) and
referred Alvarez’s incident to Dr. Leagogo of the Philippine Orthopedic Institute at the expense of the
Philippine Geothermal Inc. When Alvarez returned to work, he was assigned a light work jobs in
accordance with the doctor’s recommendations. When Alvarez’s injury was completely healed and fit to
back to his pre-injury work, Alvarez consulted with another doctor and the doctor confirmed that his
injury was completely healed.

Since Alvarez failed to report for work despite the fact that he was completely healed, the
Philippine Geothermal Inc. wrote him a warning letter that his failure to report to work will be
considered as Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL). Under Philippine Geothermal Inc. company rules,
employees who incur unauthorized absences of six (6) days or more are subject to dismissal. Thus, when
Alvarez failed to report for work from 8 to 28 February 1990, a total of eighteen (18) working days with
three (3) days off, petitioner wrote Alvarez a fourth time.

Several warning letters were given to Alvarez, and still he did not report to work, until the last
warning for Alvarez to report or he will be terminated, but still Alvarez failed to report to work. As a
consequence , Philippine Geothermal Inc. terminated Alvarez.

Alvarez then, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Regional Arbitration Branch,
Region IV. The labor arbiter rendered the decision in favour of the Philippine Geothermal Inc. holding
that the termination was valid.

Alvarez appeal to the National Labor Relation (NLRC), the decision was set aside and order the
Philippine Geothermal Inc. to reinstate Alvarez to his former position. The Philippine Geothermal Inc.
filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and it was denied. Then the Philippine Geothermal Inc. filed a
petition for certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether or not the NLRC abused its discretion by failing to appreciate that the termination was
valid.
Held: Yes.

Article 282(b) of the Labor Code provides that an employer may validly dismiss an employee for gross
and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties. In the present case, it is clear that Alvarez was guilty
of seriously neglecting his duties.

An employee who earnestly desires to resume his regular duties after recovering from an injury
undoubtedly will not go through the trouble of getting opinions from five (5) different of getting
opinions from five (5) different physicians before going back to work after he has been certified to be fit
to return to his regular duties.

Philippine Geothermal Inc, in its fourth and last warning letter to Alvarez, was willing to allow him to
resume his work in spite of the eighteen (18) days he went on AWOL. It was made clear that if Alvarez
still fail to report for work on 5 March 1990, his employment would be terminated.

While it is true that compassion and human consideration should guide the disposition of cases
involving termination of employment since it affects one's source or means of livelihood, it should not
be overlooked that the benefits accorded to labor do not include compelling an employer to retain the
services of an employee who has been shown to be a gross liability to the employer. The law in
protecting the rights of the employees authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the
employer. 12 It should be made clear that when the law tilts the scale of justice in favor of labor, it is but
a recognition of the inherent economic inequality between labor and management. The intent is to
balance the scale of justice; to put the two parties on relatively equal positions. There may be cases
where the circumstances warrant favoring labor over the interests of management but never should the
scale be so tilted if the result is an injustice to the employer.