Higher standard

The burgeoning of so many fastfood chains of restaurants undoubtedly helped solve our employment problem. Usually, they employ young men and women who are self-supporting students working their way to college for the much coveted diplomas that will be their passport to more lucrative jobs. But there is also a negative aspect to this auspicious development. These young employees are usually exposed to dangerous work environment like working up to late at night doing odd jobs detrimental to their physical and moral health. This is what Dory experienced in her case.

Dory was employed by a famous fast food conglomerate as a clerk typist in the materials department. Working with her were several other girls under the supervision of Mr. Valdez, the materials manager. Barely five months on the job, Dory and the other girls were cordially invited to dinner by Mr. Valdez and a co-supervisor, Mr. De Villa who apparently was attracted to Dory.

Dory and the other girls except three of them accepted the invitation and they ate at a restaurant along Makati Avenue. Valdez and De Villa were drinking while the girls ate. They even offered Dory a few drinks and when they were finished, they decided to bring Dory home. But while on the way, Valdez drove his car to a motel. Dory was shocked by what happened but being a subordinate, she could not do anything.

One week later however, Dory submitted her letter of resignation to the company president instead of just leaving the company without any word as it would “be unfair to those similarly situated.” She narrated the incident of the previous week which shocked her because she “did not expect that a somewhat reputable person like Mr. Valdez could do such a thing to any of his subordinates,” and expressed hope that the president would “find time to investigate the veracity of her allegations.”

The company president thus confronted Valdez with Dory’s charge. Initially, Valdez voluntarily agreed to be separated from the company and took a 20-day leave of absence preparatory to his separation. This agreement was contained in the letter of the president before his leave expired addressed to him asking him to submit a letter of resignation. A few days after however, Valdez reneged on the agreement. In a letter to the president admitting his error vis a vis Dory, he refused to be terminated on the ground that the seriousness of his offense would not warrant his separation from the service. For refusing to resign, the company dismissed him from the service. So he filed an illegal dismissal case against the company.

The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Valdez finding that there was no due process and no valid ground for his dismissal. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), reversed the ruling and declared that the cause of his dismissal was valid; however for procedural lapses, the company was ordered to pay Valdez’s separation pay. Valdez questioned the NLRC decision, claiming that his alleged immoral act was unsubstantiated, so he could not be dismissed. He said that De Villa and Dory were sweethearts and he merely acceded to the request of De Villa to drop them at a motel. Was Valdez validly dismissed?

Yes. Initially, he voluntarily agreed to resign when confronted with Dory’s charge. Then when he reneged on this agreement, he admitted in his letter of refusal to be terminated due to his “error” against Dory. As a manager Valdez should know the evidentiary value of his admissions. He cannot claim there was no valid cause for his dismissal.

Assuming arguendo that his colleague De Villa and Dory were sweethearts and he accommodated their request to drop them at a motel, he acted in collusion with the immoral designs of De Villa and did not give due regard to Dory’s feeling on the matter, in chauvinistic disdain of her honor, thereby justifying the finding of sexual harassment.

As a managerial employee, Valdez is bound by a more exacting work ethics. He failed to live up to this higher standard of responsibility when he succumbed to moral perversity. And when such moral perversity is perpetrated against a subordinate, he provides a justifiable ground for his dismissal for lack of trust and confidence. It is the right and duty of every employer to protect its employees from over sexed superiors.

Sexual harassment abounds in all sick societies. It is reprehensible enough but more so when inflicted by those with moral ascendancy over their victims and therefore a valid cause for separation from service. So Valdez’s dismissal is valid but for non-observance of due process in his dismissal the company should pay him P1,000. (Villarama vs. NLRC, G.R. 106341, September 2, 1994, 236 SCRA, 280)