Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > October 1982 Decisions > G.R. Nos. L-55249-50 October 19, 1982 - PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

203 Phil. 56:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. L-55249-50. October 19, 1982.]

PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and VICENTE ERNESTO, Respondents.

Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc and De los Angeles, for Petitioners.

Proceso Armanento for Private Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


The fiscal charged respondent Ernesto — an employee of petitioner company- and two other persons with qualified theft for their complicity in the diversion and sale of diesel oil belonging to petitioner. One of the two co-accused of private respondent revealed in an extrajudicial confession that Ernesto connived with him in the theft of the subject oil. However, after a reinvestigation, wherein Ernesto’s two co-accused did not testify, the fiscal exonerated him. Despite that exoneration, petitioner nonetheless dismissed Ernesto who thereafter sued for his reinstatement with backwages. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent Ernesto. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed with some modification the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

On certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed and set aside the questioned judgment of respondent Commission for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction and ordered the dismissal of private respondent, holding that; (a) the fiscal’s exoneration of private respondent is not binding and conclusive on the labor tribunal; (b)there is substantial evidence showing that private respondent committed a fraud or breach of trust which is a statutory ground for his dismissal; and (c) consequently, the fiscal’s exoneration of private respondent does not justify his reinstatement.

Petition granted. Assailed decision of respondent Commission, reversed and set aside.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; NEW LABOR CODE; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION; DISREGARD THEREOF OF UNREBUTTED TESTIMONIES OF WITNESSES SHOWING COMPLICITY OF RESPONDENT EMPLOYEE IN A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, CONSTITUTES GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.- The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in disregarding the unrebutted testimonies of witnesses proving that respondent employee was implicated in the theft of the diesel oil belonging to petitioner company.

2. ID.; ID.; TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT; FRAUD OR BREACH OF TRUST AS A GROUND; EXISTENCE THEREOF DOES NOT JUSTIFY REINSTATEMENT OF A DISMISSED EMPLOYEE DESPITE HIS EXONERATION IN THE CRIMINAL CASE. — The fiscal’s exoneration of respondent Ernesto does not justify his reinstatement since petitioner’s evidence shows that he committed a fraud or breach of trust which is a statutory ground for his dismissal (Art. 283 [c], Labor Code).

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; DISMISSAL OF A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE, NOT CONCLUSIVE ON LABOR TRIBUNALS; CONVICTION IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS NOT INDISPENSABLE TO WARRANT HIS DISMISSAL. — The fact that a criminal complaint for theft against an employee was dropped by the fiscal is not binding and conclusive on the labor tribunal. "The conviction of an employee in a criminal case is not indispensable to warrant his dismissal by his employer." If there is sufficient evidence to show that the employee has been guilty of a breach of trust or that his employer has ample reason to distrust him, the labor tribunal "cannot justly deny to the employer the authority to dismiss such an employee." (National Labor Union, Inc. v. Standard Vacuum Oil Company, 73 Phil. 279; See Organization of Laborers and Employees v. Roldan, 95 Phil. 727, 733 and Philippine Education Co. v. Union of Phil. Education Employees and CIR, 107 Phil. 1003.)


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


This is a review of the decision of Commissioners Diego P. Atienza and Geronimo Q. Quadra of the National Labor Relations Commission, ordering the reinstatement of Vicente Ernesto as warehouseman of Philippine Geothermal, Inc. with backwages equivalent to one year, six months and twenty-six days computed at the hourly rate at the time of his dismissal.

From that decision, Commissioner Cleto T. Villatuya dissented. He opined that Ernesto’s participation in the theft of the company’s property was proven by substantial evidence and, therefore, the dismissal was justified.

At about four o’clock in the afternoon of August 15, 1978 a Petrophil tanker driven by Juan Reyes with Marcos Geralde as helper arrived at the company’s project site located at Barrio Bitin, Bay, Laguna to deliver ten thousand liters of Petron diesel oil which were purchased by the company from Petrophil for P11,737.

Warehouseman Vicente Ernesto acknowledged the receipt of the shipment by signing the corresponding delivery invoice. The oil was supposed to be unloaded at Well No. 26 in the project site at Sitio Bulalo. However, the tanker, instead of proceeding to Bulalo, went out of the gate, still loaded. It was accompanied by Ernesto who informed the security guard, Roberto Solis, that there was a misdelivery because what was brought by the tanker was diesel oil instead of gasoline. That misrepresentation was entered by Solis in his logbook (pp. 4-5, 41, Rollo).

Thus, the oil was not delivered at the drilling area although according to the delivery invoice signed by Ernesto it was received by the company. The oil was diverted and sold to another person.

Reyes in his extrajudicial confession revealed that the oil was sold for P9,000 in Caloocan City and that he gave Ernesto P4,500 and Geralde P1,000 as their shares in the proceeds of the sale (p. 5, Rollo). Reyes said that Ernesto connived (nakipagsabuatan) with him in the diversion and sale of the oil.

The fiscal charged Ernesto, Reyes and Geralde with qualified theft in the Court of First Instance of Laguna. However, after a reinvestigation, wherein Reyes and Solis did not testify, the fiscal exonerated Ernesto and filed a motion for the dismissal of the case against him. The court granted the motion.

The company’s appeal from the fiscal’s finding, which was based on the technicality that Reyes’ confession was not admissible against Ernesto, was dismissed by the Minister of Justice in his resolution dated January 14, 1981.

Nevertheless, despite that exoneration, Philippine Geothermal, Inc. dismissed Ernesto and on August 31, 1978 filed with the Ministry of Labor an application for clearance to dismiss him for his involvement in the theft of the oil.

About seven months later, or on March 28, 1979, Ernesto filed a complaint against the company for reinstatement with backwages. The two cases were tried jointly in the NLRC’s San Pablo City branch. The Labor Arbiter ordered the reinstatement of Ernesto with backwages. The NLRC affirmed that decision with some modification.

We hold that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in disregarding the testimonies of Solis, the security guard, and Reyes, the driver, in these two cases, proving that Ernesto was implicated in the theft of the diesel oil. Ernesto did not rebut those testimonies.

Hence, the fiscal’s exoneration of Ernesto does not justify his reinstatement. Petitioner’s evidence shows that Ernesto committed a fraud or breach of trust which is a statutory ground for his dismissal (Art. 283[c]), Labor Code).

"The conviction of an employee in a criminal case is not indispensable to warrant his dismissal by his employer." If there is sufficient evidence to show that the employee has been guilty of a breach of trust, or that his employer has ample reason to distrust him, the labor tribunal "cannot justly deny to the employer the authority to dismiss such an employee." The fact that a criminal complaint for theft against an employee was dropped by the fiscal is not binding and conclusive on the labor tribunal (National Labor Union, Inc. v. Standard Vacuum Oil Company, 73 Phil. 279).

In the National Labor Union case, supra, the foreman and the checker of the lubricating oil department of an oil company, who were involved in the shortage of the oil stock in the company warehouse, were dismissed although the fiscal had dismissed the charge of theft filed against them. See similar holding in National Organization of Laborers and Employees v. Roldan, 95 Phil. 727, 733 and Phil. Education Co., Inc. v. Union of Phil. Education Employees and CIR, 107 Phil. 1003.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is reversed and set aside and the dismissal of Vicente Ernesto as petitioner’s warehouseman is hereby decreed. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-32999 October 15, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. TEODULO C. TANDAYAG

    203 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-53497 October 18, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO INGUITO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 6

  • G.R. No. L-56564 October 18, 1982 - FILOMENO BARIAS v. EDUARDA ALCANTARA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 14

  • G.R. No. L-59847 October 18, 1982 - PHILIPPINES INTER-FASHION, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 23

  • G.R. No. L-60800 October 18, 1982 - JAIME PELEJO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 29

  • G.R. No. L-61676 October 18, 1982 - EDITHA B. SALIGUMBA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 34

  • G.R. No. L-39919 October 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO DE LA CRUZ

    203 Phil. 36

  • G.R. Nos. L-55249-50 October 19, 1982 - PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 56

  • G.R. No. L-48875 October 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN MUIT

    203 Phil. 60

  • A.M. No. 2125-CTJ October 23, 1982 - CANDELARIA VILLAMOR v. SILVINO LU. BARRO

    203 Phil. 75

  • A.C. No. 2410 October 23, 1983

    IN RE: RODOLFO PAJO

    203 Phil. 79

  • G.R. No. L-29985 October 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO M. BUNDALIAN

    203 Phil. 83

  • G.R. No. L-30583 October 23, 1982 - EUTROPIO ZAYAS, JR. v. LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 91

  • G.R. No. L-31053 October 23, 1982 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. PEDRO SAMSON C. ANIMAS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 100

  • G.R. No. L-31420 October 23, 1982 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., ET AL. v. PATROCINIO ESGUERRA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 107

  • G.R. No. L-31832 October 23, 1982 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. SSS SUPERVISORS’ UNION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 112

  • G.R. No. L-32377 October 23, 1982 - LUCAS BUISER v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    203 Phil. 117

  • G.R. No. L-32719 October 23, 1982 - RUFILA Q. ARANAS v. FEDERICO ENDONA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 120

  • G.R. No. L-33192 October 23, 1982 - GERVACIO LUIS QUE v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH IX, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 128

  • G.R. No. L-33632 October 23, 1982 - FAUSTO MONTESA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 138

  • G.R. No. L-33756 October 23, 1982 - SABINO RIGOR, ET AL. v. EDUARDO ROSALES, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 149

  • G.R. Nos. L-33819 and L-33897 October 23, 1982 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. NATIONAL MERCHANDISING CORPORATION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 159

  • G.R. No. L-36181 & L-36748 October 23, 1982 - MERALCO SECURITIES CORPORATION v. VICTORINO SAVELLANO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 173

  • G.R. Nos. L-36481-2 October 23, 1982 - AMPARO C. SERVANDO, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE STEAM NAVIGATION CO.

    203 Phil. 184

  • G.R. No. L-37203 October 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO SADIWA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 192

  • G.R. No. L-37255 October 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR B. ASIBAR, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 210

  • G.R. No. L-37323 October 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISPINIANO MAURO

    203 Phil. 223

  • G.R. No. L-38297 October 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO CAPALAC

    203 Phil. 229

  • G.R. No. L-39631 October 23, 1982 - JESUSA LIQUIDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 239

  • G.R. No. L-43309 October 23, 1982 - SIMEON OLBES v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 244

  • G.R. No. L-43805 October 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO ROMERO, JR.

    203 Phil. 255

  • G.R. No. L-48143 October 23, 1982 - DOMINGO D. TOGONON v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 262

  • G.R. No. L-57467 October 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCIS MILITANTE, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 269

  • G.R. No. L-57641 October 23, 1982 - ANTOLIN A. JARIOL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 273

  • G.R. No. L-59264 October 23, 1982 - ALEJANDRO GRONIFILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 284

  • G.R. No. L-59906 October 23, 1982 - BUENAVENTURA SAN JUAN v. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA

    203 Phil. 287

  • G.R. No. L-60018 October 23, 1982 - DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR.

    203 Phil. 290

  • G.R. No. L-45553 October 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO LISONDRA

    203 Phil. 299

  • G.R. No. L-60083 October 27, 1982 - CRISPINA PEÑAFLOR v. DOMINGO PANIS

    203 Phil. 307

  • G.R. No. L-47363 October 28, 1982 - FRANCISCO A. FUENTES, ET AL. v. OSCAR LEVISTE, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 313

  • G.R. No. L-57429 October 28, 1982 - INTERNATIONAL HARDWOOD AND VENEER CO. OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICENTE LEOGARDO

    203 Phil. 324

  • G.R. No. L-30882 October 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANTE F. ANIES

    203 Phil. 332

  • G.R. No. L-31757 October 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PIO MARCOS

    203 Phil. 357

  • G.R. No. L-36186 October 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO QUINTO

    203 Phil. 362

  • G.R. No. L-38989 October 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO CASTRO

    203 Phil. 374

  • G.R. No. L-60121 October 29, 1982 - CARLOS PO, ET AL. v. EMETERIO YU, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 382