222 Meal Periods

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. VS. NLRC

G.R. No. 132805. February 2, 1999

FACTS:
 Private respondent Fabros was employed as flight surgeon at petitioner company,
assigned at the PAL Medical Clinic at Nichols with duty from 4:00pm until 12:00md
 On February 17, 1994, at around 7:00 in the evening, while private respondent
was having dinner at his residence (5 min drive away from the clinic), one of PAL’s
employees, Acosta, had a heart attack
 when private respondent returned to the clinic, the nurse on duty had already left
for the hospital with the patient.
 Acosta died the following day.
 Fabros explains that he was entitled to a thirty-minute meal break and that he
immediately left when the nurse informed him of the emergency, however, the
patient had already been brought to the hospital when he returned
 Petitioner charged respondent with abandonment of post while on duty and
suspended the private respondent for three months
 Private respondent filed for illegal dismissal which the LA ruled in his favor and the
NLRC affirmed

ISSUE: Whether private respondent is guilty of abandonment of post while on duty.

RULING: No. The eight-hour work period does not include the meal break. Nowhere
in the law may it be inferred that employees must take their meals within the company
premises. Employees are not prohibited from going out of the premises as long as they
return to their posts on time. Private respondent’s act, therefore, of going home to
take his dinner does not constitute abandonment.

However, petitioner is not liable for moral damages. There is no showing that the
management of petitioner company was moved by some evil motive in suspending private
respondent. It suspended private respondent on an honest, albeit erroneous, belief
that private respondent’s act of leaving the company premises to take his meal at
home constituted abandonment of post which warrants the penalty of suspension.
Also, it is evident from the facts that petitioner gave private respondent all the opportunity
to refute the charge against him and to defend himself. These negate the existence of
bad faith on the part of petitioner.