116 Villeno V NLRC (Case Digest)

Villeno v.
NLRC
G.R. No. 108153, December 26, 1995
FACTS:
Petitioner Juan P. Villeno was employed as electrician in one of the vessels of private
respondent Sulpicio Lines, Inc. Twenty-seven (27) years. M/V Sulpicio Container XI after
leaving the port was forced to return due to the death of the purser on board. Upon reaching
port, the crew members were instructed not to leave the vessel as it would pursue its voyage
immediately after turning over the body to the proper authorities. The petitioner, without seeking
permission, left the vessel purportedly to settle a marital problem. Before leaving he
disconnected the ship's steering line cable so that the vessel could not leave port without him.
According to petitioner, when he returned to the port thirty (30) minutes later, the ship was only
a few inches away from the wharf but was prevented by a representative of respondent
corporation from boarding the vessel. It turned out that the vessel had hired another electrician
to reconnect the steering line cable. After evaluation of the evidence he was found guilty of
intentionally sabotaging the operation of the vessel, a serious misconduct, compounded by
willful disobedience justifying the penalty of dismissal. Petitioner filed a complaint against private
respondents for illegal dismissal.
Petitioner argues that although his reason for disconnecting the steering line cable was personal
yet it was highly commendable since he was concerned with family unity. In addition, the
disconnection was done to protect the vessel from pranksters who in the past would play with
the steering wheel. By terminating his services respondent corporation thus set to naught his
twenty-seven (27) years of service, completely ignoring the fact that it was his first offense.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioner's act of disconnecting the steering line cable and disembarking from the
vessel without permission constitute serious misconduct and willful disobedience justifying his
dismissal.
RULING:
YES. SC sustain the NLRC in holding that petitioner was guilty of serious misconduct and willful
disobedience —
Granted that his act was without malice or willful intent to cause damage, this does not excuse
him for putting his personal interests over that of his employers in the sense that he . . .
unnecessarily disrupt(ed) and prejudice(d) the normal operations of respondent to attend to
personal matters. No amount of good faith or lack of intention to cause damage can diminish the
degree of responsibility of complainant for his actuations . . .
By disconnecting the steering line cable before disembarking, petitioner must have deluded
himself into believing that he was the master in command of the vessel and that during his
absence the vessel should be immobile. His lack of concern for his employer's interests or for
his responsibility towards his employer was plainly exhibited by these additional circumstances
noted by the NLRC —
We are aware of the inconvenience and discomfort caused to passengers by delays. In the case
at bar, it is bad enough that the vessel had to return to port; but to further delay the voyage
because complainant wants to talk to his wife is pathetic. Complainant was important to the
vessel's complement.
Considerations of first offense and length of service are overshadowed by the seriousness of
the offense. As to whether an offense is minor or serious will have to be determined according
to the peculiar facts of each case. And to a shipping company engaged in the transportation of
passengers and cargoes any delay of its vessels may greatly affect its business and reputation
and expose the company to unmitigated lawsuits for breach of contract and damages.
The offenses cannot be excused upon a plea of their being "first offenses," or have not resulted
in prejudice to the company in any way. [That] no employer may rationally be expected to
continue in employment a person whose lack of morals, respect and loyalty to his employer,
regard for his employer's rules, and appreciation of the dignity and responsibility of his office,
has so plainly and completely been bared.
Along the same vein the Court ruled in Colgate-Palmolive Philippines, Inc. v. Ople, which also
involved serious violation of company rules and regulations by the employee —
Where the totality of the evidence was sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the employees the
law warrants their dismissal without making any distinction between a first offender and a
habitual delinquent. Under the law, respondent Minister is duly mandated to equally protect and
respect not only the labor or workers' side but also the management and/or employers' side.

116 Villeno V NLRC (Case Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

116 Villeno V NLRC (Case Digest)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

116 Villeno V NLRC (Case Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Villeno v.

You might also like