Thereafter, Ignacio was terminated from employment.

AMA Computer College - East Rizal v. Ignacio

G.R. No. 178520.
June 23, 2009.

Ignacio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of salaries, wages OT pay,
holiday pay and rest day damages against AMACC-ER, and AMACCI President and HR
Director.

Facts:

Petitioners Contention:

AMA Computer College East Rizal (AMACC-ER), is a branch of AMA Computer

College, Inc. (AMACCI),

Denied that dismissal was illegal.

Amable Aguiluz and Anthony Cruz are President and Human Resource Director,
respectively, of AMACCI

Ignacio did not secure proper authorization in causing the demolition of a wall partition
of AMACC-ER. which led to loss and damage of equipment and records of the school.
Thus, the charge and penalty were proper, as per Employees Manual.

Allan Raymond Ignacio was first employed, in 1998, AMA Computer College Fairview
(AMACCFV), as Management Trainee (Maintenance Supervisor).
3 months thereafter, Ignacio was granted permanent status, and was transferred to
AMACC-ER, brought about by a deadline for ISO 9000 Oplan of AMACCI.
AMACC-ER was scheduled to be inspected for Certification by the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO)

Further, AMACC-ER complied with the requirements of procedural due process - notice
and hearing.
Labor Arbiters Ruling:
Ignacios dismissal was not illegal.

Within his first week, Ignacio went to AMCCI to consult with its Asst. VP for
Construction, Engr. Noblezada, for the renovation plan of AMACC-ER's school facilities.

The evidence presented by AMACC-ER and AMACCI President and HR Director was
substantial. Ignacio evidently committed serious offense of demolition without
premission from management, which led to loss and damage to the records and
equipment of the school.

Engr. Noblezada advised that Ignacio needs approval of AMA Educational System
(AMAES) VP Zenaida Carpio. Since AMAES VP Carpio was out of her office, Ignacio
went instead to consult with:

Ignacios negligence was not a simple one.

There was also compliance with the procedural due process requirements.

(a) AMACC-ER School Director / COO Lydia Tagaguin, and

(b) owner of JL Domingo Building, Mr. Joselito Domingo.

Also, the claims for damages resulting from dismissal (medical expenses, refund of
tuition fees, reimbursement for tools and equipment, moral and exemplary damages)
must fail. There was no bad faith or illegality on the part of AMACC-ER Management.

Ignacio started demolishing the concrete partition wall of the computer laboratory.
AMAES VP Carpio and AMACCI AVP Balon Panay conducted inspection.

NLRC Ruling:

However, Audit Department of AMACCI filed a complaint against Ignacio, charging him
with (t)hreatening to damage company property, negligence or failure to exercise
adequate asset control measures within ones area of responsibility.

Affirmed.

After a week, Ignacio received a Memorandum from AMACCI HR Director Cruzm

informing him that a complaint was filed against him for inexcusable gross negligence
resulting in serious damage to 35 computers and loss of class records/exams. Ignacio
was also placed on preventive suspension

Reversed.

Court of Appeals:

Ignacio was illegally dismissed. Ignacios transgression cannot be considered a serious

misconduct when his actuation was not willful and deliberate, there appearing to be no
intention on his part to cause damage.

charge that the renovation initiated by Ignacio was without authority.

Although Ignacio was guilty of negligence, it was not gross or habitual as would warrant
his dismissal.
SC:
Affirmed CA.
1) There was compliance of procedural due process. Ignacio was given a time, though
limited, to explain his side and present evidence.
Formal notice (of investigation for negligence due to failure to exercise adequate asset
control measures) was given to Ignacio.
Hearing was scheduled and held immediately
Another formal notice of investigation, this time for serious damage of company property
and loss of class records/exams, was served to Ignacio.
Again, hearing was scheduled and held immediately,
2) Ignacios termination was not for just cause.
First, Ignacio was charged with serious misconduct - gross negligence resulting to loss
of important documents.
However, AMACCI failed to prove by substantial evidence the charges against Ignacio.
There is no showing at all that respondents actions were motivated by a perverse and
wrongful intent, as required by Article 282(a) of the Labor Code.
Further, under the Employee Conduct and Discipline Manual of AMACCI, loss of
records is considered a light offense punishable by written reprimand.
Second, the following circumstances illustrates absence of just and authorized cause for
Ignacios dismissal:
(a) The renovation undertaken by Ignacio was authorized under a renovation plan
approved and signed on 16 August 1999 by AMAES Vice President Carpio;
(b) AMACC-ER authorities were well aware of the ongoing renovation, as well as
Carpio, together with an AMACCI official, Assistant Vice President Panay, who
conducted an inspection of the school facilities, a day after the partition wall in the
computer laboratory was demolished.
(c) Ms. Taganguin, the School Director called for a meeting to inform the concerned
department heads about possible changes within the JL Domingo building, negating the

(d) Mr. Arnold Necio, Network (IT) Supervisor, issued a certification stating that the
computers in the computer laboratory were randomly tested and found to be in good
working condition;
(e) The security guard, on duty, wrote an entry in the logbook that: NO DAMAGE NO
LOSSES DURING 8 HOURS Tour of Duty.
Thus, Ignacio's blunders did not constitute serious misconduct or willful disobedience as
to justify the termination of his employment.
Also, the penalty of dismissal imposed on Ignacio was disproportionate to his offense.
3) As corporate officers, AMACCI President and HR Director, there should not be held
liable.
Unless they have exceeded their authority, corporate officers are, as a general rule, not
personally liable for their official acts, because a corporation, by legal fiction, has a
personality separate and distinct from its officers, stockholders and members.
Wile it is true, that as an exception, corporate directors and officers are solidarily held
liable with the corporation, where terminations of employment are done with malice or in
bad faith.
However, where there is an absence of evidence that said directors and officers acted
with malice or bad faith, as in this case, the Court must exempt them from any personal
liability for the employees illegal dismissal.