FACTS: Private respondent was a company nurse for the Philippine

Aelous United Corporation. A memorandum was issued by the personnel

manager of petitioner corporation to respondent Cortez asking her to explain
why no action should be taken against her for (1) throwing a stapler at plant
manager William Chua; (2) fro losing the amount of Php 1,488 entrusted to her;
(3) for asking a co-employee to punch in her time card one morning when she
was not there. She was then placed on preventive suspension. Another
memorandum was sent to her asking her to explain why she failed to process
the ATM applications of her co-employees. She submitted a written explanation
as to the loss of Php 1,488 and the punching in of her time card. A third
memorandum was sent to her informing her of her termination from service for
gross and habitual neglect of duties, serious misconduct, and fraud or willful
breach of trust.

ISSUES:
1. W/N petitioner was illegally dismissed.
2. If such dismissal was illegal, W/N petitioner should be entitled to damages.

HELD:
1. Yes. The grounds by which an employer may validly terminate the services of
an employee must be strictly construed. As to the first charge, respondent
claims that plant manager William Chua had been making sexual advances on
her since her first year of employment and that when she would not accede to
his requests, he threatened that he would cause her termination from service.
As to the second charge, the money entrusted to her was not lost, but given to
the personnel-in-charge for proper transmittal as evidence by a receipt signed
by the latter. As to the third charge, she explains that she asked someone to
punch in her card as she was doing an errand for one of the companys officers
and with the permission of William Chua. As to the fourth charge, she asserts
that she had no knowledge thereof. To constitute serious misconduct to justify
dismissal, the acts must be done in relation to the performance of her duties as
would show her to be unfit to continue working for her employer. The acts of did
not pertain to her duties as a nurse nor did they constitute serious misconduct.
However due to the strained relations, in lieu of reinstatement, she is to be
awarded separation pay of one month for every year of service until finality of
this judgment.

2. Yes. Private respondent admittedly allowed four years to pass before coming
out with her employers sexual impositions; but the time to do such varies
depending upon the needs, circumstances and emotional threshold of the
employee. It is clear that respondent has suffered anxiety, sleepless nights,
besmirched reputation and social humiliation by reason of the act complained
of. Thus, she should be entitled to moral and exemplary damages for the
oppressive manner with which petitioners effected her dismissal and to serve as
a warming to officers who take advantage of their ascendancy over their
employees.