Dismissed editor wins case vs. newspaper
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) has ordered the management of an Iloilo-based newspaper to pay more than P110,000 in backwages to its former editor for illegal dismissal.
In a five-page order dated July 27, 2007 but released December 11, 2007, the NLRC regional arbitration branch in Bacolod City also ordered Panay News to reinstate Loralie Sotelo to her former position as business editor without loss of seniority rights.
In the decision penned by Fatima Jambaro-Franco, executive labor arbiter for adjudication, the NLRC directed Panay News to pay Sotelo a total of P102,080 representing almost 13 months of backwages from July 6, 2006 to July 27, 2006. She will also receive another P8,506.66 as 13th month pay.
Panay News will appeal the ruling, according to the newspaper's publisher Daniel Fajardo in a telephone interview.
Franco said in her order that the Sotelo's dismissal was illegal because she was not given due process by the newspaper for violations that she allegedly committed.
Sotelo had filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the newspaper's management after she received a termination letter on July 4, 2006. She also sought damages and compensation for legal fees.
She said in her complaint that she was employed as business editor since November 4, 2005 and during her employment, she was never subjected to any disciplinary action nor has she violated company rules and regulations.
In its position paper, Panay News defended Sotelo's dismissal saying she was laid off because of alleged unsatisfactory performance, tardiness, for having been absent for 15 days and for not following instructions.
But Franco said in her order that the respondents failed to show any evidence to support their allegations.
"The records are bereft of any performance evaluation or assessment report which would show that complainant's performance was below par or unsatisfactory. Likewise the charge of not following instructions was not elaborated."
The NLRC order also said that if the charge of not following instruction was true, Sotelo could have been charge with insubordination.
It said charges of tardiness are not enough grounds for termination of employment.
"Dismissal for said minor infractions is too harsh. Utmost, complainant could have been reprimanded or suspended but not terminated from service," said the order.
The NLRC also pointed out that the evidence showed that the complainant was not given a chance to explain her side on the alleged infractions.
"There was no charge or notice issued informing her of the infractions she committed and directing her to submit her explanation," according to the order.