MCDONALD vs ALBA Case Digest

MCDONALD S (KATIPUNAN BRANCH), et al. v. MA. DULCE ALBA

574 SCRA 427 (2008)
FACTS: Ma. Dulce Alba (Alba) was hired as part of the service crew of McDonald s K
atipunan Branch. During the orientation of newly hired employees, McDonald s provi
ded Alba with a copy of the Crew Employee Handbook on rules and regulations incl
uding its meal policies, which state that an employee was not permitted to eat i
nside the crew room while on duty, and that doing so would result in summary dis
missal.
Rizza Santiago (Santiago), another crew member, reported to the store manager Ki
t Alvarez (Alvarez) that she witnessed Alba eating inside the crew room during h
er duty. McDonald s thus suspended Alba for five days because of the incident. Whe
n asked about it, Alba explained that she did indeed ate inside the crew room bu
t that it was only because she was had a stomach ache due to hunger. Nevertheles
s, McDonald s found Alba guilty of flouting company regulations and immediately te
rminated her services. Alba thus lodged a complaint against McDonald s before the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which dismissed it without prejudice.

Alba re-filed her complaint, and after submission of the parties respective posit
ion papers and responsive pleadings, Labor Arbiter Pablo Espiritu Jr. found in f
avor of Alba, holding that while she violated the meal policy of McDonald s, dismi
ssal was too harsh a penalty, and suspension without pay would have sufficed. Mc
Donald s appealed the finding of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC, which denied the s
ame.
ISSUE: Whether or not the violation of the meal policy amounts to serious or wil
lful misconduct which would justify dismissal
HELD: There is no dispute that Alba violated McDonald s meal policy. The only issu
e is whether such violation amounts to or borders on "serious or willful" miscon
duct or willful disobedience, as petitioners posit, to call for respondent s dismi
ssal. By any measure, the Supreme Court holds not.
With respect to serious misconduct, it is not sufficient that the act or the con
duct complained of must have violated some established rules or policies. It mus
t have been performed with wrongful intent.
McDonald s, on which the onus of proving lawful cause in sustaining the dismissal
of Alba lies, failed to prove that her misconduct was induced by a perverse and
wrongful intent, they having merely anchored their claim that she was on her kno
wledge of the meal policy.
While McDonald s wields a wide latitude of discretion in the promulgation of polic
ies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of its employees, these mu
st, however, be fair and reasonable at all times, and the corresponding sanction
s for violations thereof, when prescribed, must be commensurate thereto as well
as to the degree of the infraction. Given Alba s claim that she was having stomach
pains due to hunger, which is not implausible, the same should have been proper
ly taken into account in the imposition of the appropriate penalty for violation

of the meal policy. McDonald s suspension for five days sufficed. With that penal
ty, the necessity of cautioning other employees who may be wont to violate the s
ame policy was not compromised.
Moreover, McDonald s likewise failed to prove any resultant material damage or pre
judice on their part as a consequence of respondent's questioned act. Their clai
m that the act would cause "irremediable harm to the company s business" is too va
gue to merit consideration.