Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > April 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 100749 April 24, 1992 - GT PRINTERS, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 100749. April 24, 1992.]

GT PRINTERS AND/OR TRINIDAD G. BARBA, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (4TH DIVISION) and EDWIN RICARDO, Respondents.

T.A. Almase, S.G. Almase, M.G. Almase & C.A. Allanic for Petitioner.

Hermosisima, Sison & Inso for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT; REQUIREMENTS FOR VALIDITY THEREOF; CASE AT BAR. — The twin requirements of a valid termination; due process and just cause — were met substantially for Ricardo was given ample opportunity to appear at the two scheduled investigations in order to present his side, but he chose to boycott the investigation. Even at the hearing before the Labor Arbiter, he waived, through counsel, the presentation and cross-examination of witnesses.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; DUE PROCESS; DOE NOT NECESSARILY MEAN OR REQUIRE HEARING BUT SIMPLY AN OPPORTUNITY OR RIGHT TO BE HEARD. — Due process does not necessarily mean or require a hearing, but simply an opportunity or right to be heard (Hian v. CTA, 59 SCRA 110; Azul v. Castro, 133 SCRA 271). The affidavits, testimonies and other documentary evidence presented by the petitioner stand uncontroverted and are therefore entitled to full credit. It is well-settled that this Court is not a trier of facts, so we defer to the superior opportunity of the lower courts or administrative bodies to test the credibility of the witnesses and to examine the authenticity of the documentary evidence directly before them (Mapa v. Arroyo, 175 SCRA 76; Dagupan Bus Co., Inc., v. NLRC, 191 SCRA 328).

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; "FOR CAUSE;" SUBSTANTIALLY MET IN CASE OF INFRACTIONS OF ACCEPTED COMPANY RULES BY AN EMPLOYEE AMOUNTING TO BREACH OF TRUST AND LOSS OF CONFIDENCE. — The security of tenure accorded to labor under the Constitution does not embrace infractions of accepted company rules amounting to branch of trust and loss of confidence (Rosello, Jr. v. NLRC, 190 SCRA 779). The right of an employer to dismiss a managerial employee for breach of trust and loss of confidence, as in this case, cannot be doubted. As a measure of self-preservation against acts inimical to its interests, an employer has the right to dismiss an employee found committing acts of dishonesty and disloyalty. The employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such a person whose continuance in the service would patently be inimical to his employer’s interest (Colgate Palmolive Phils. Inc. v. Ople, 163 SCRA 323). The dismissal of a dishonest employee is in the best interest not only of management but also of labor for the law never intended to impose an unjust situation on either labor or management (Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc. v. NLRC, 172 SCRA 751).

4. ID.; REINSTATEMENT; NOT PROPER IN CASE THERE EXIST VISIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO WILLFUL BREACH OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSE UPON AN EMPLOYEE BY EMPLOYER. — Reinstatement would be ill-advised and incompatible with the labor arbiter’s finding that "from those documentary evidences presented by respondent, it can be safely conclude[d] that . . . there exist visible conflict of interest amounting to willful breach of trust and confidence repose (sic) upon him by his employer, . . . as well as (b) habitual neglect of his duties . . ." (pp. 216-217, Rollo). The reinstatement of erring managers may not be ordered with the same ease and liberality as rank and file workers (Pacific Cement Co., Inc. v. NLRC, 173 SCRA 192).


D E C I S I O N


GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:


The private respondent, Edwin Ricardo, was employed in 1968 as an apprentice of GT Printers, a single proprietorship owned by Mrs. Trinidad Barba of East Capitol Site, Cebu City. Having gained enough experience and expertise in the printing business and after undergoing special schooling in Manila at company expense, Ricardo was promoted to the position of production manager of GT Printers. In 1978, he became general manager after the untimely demise of the owner’s husband, who held that position. Ricardo earned a monthly basic salary of P1,680, and ECOLA of P485, representation allowance of P1,000 and on top of these, a three (3%) per cent share in the gross receipt of the business.

In February, 1985, Ricardo’s wife established Insta Printers, a rival printing press, with Edwin Ricardo himself as consultant and owner. Since the establishment of Insta Printers, Ricardo became a habitual absentee from his job at GT Printers. He neglected his duties and responsibilities, and became lax in directing and supervising the work force, resulting in numerous major printing errors and failure to meet printing specifications leading to the rejection of several job orders from regular customers.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Mrs. Barba noticed that Ricardo not only used GT Printers’ bookcloth and other printing materials for his Insta Printers, but he also gave specific instructions to the production staff to give priority to book and magazine job orders for Insta Printers. Eventually, the regular customers of GT Printers were pirated by Insta Printers. Ricardo also manipulated price quotations during the canvassing of bids to favor his own outfit instead of GT Printers.

Because of those irregularities, GT Printers suspended Ricardo as general manager for 30 days. Effective June 18, 1986, Richard Barba was designated to take his place. Contracts concluded by respondent Ricardo thereafter were no longer honored. However, he continued to be a sales agent for GT Printers, hence, he continued to receive commissions. Notices of his investigation scheduled on July 24, 1986 and August 13, 1986 were sent to him but he did not appear at the investigation. He stopped reporting for work and soon after filed a complaint for illegal dismissal in the Regional Arbitration Branch NO. VII of the Department of Labor and Employment in Cebu City, entitled "Edwin Ricardo v. GT Printers and/or Trinidad G. Barba." (NLRC Case No. RAB-VII-0398-86.)

The case was heard by Labor Arbiter Bonifacio Tumanak who rendered a decision on January 4, 1990 finding that Ricardo was lawfully dismissed from employment. Nevertheless, the Labor Arbiter ordered the payment to him of separation pay equivalent to one-half month pay for every year of service (pp. 28-42, Rollo).cralawnad

Ricardo appealed that decision to the NLRC which on April 18, 1991 (pp. 43-51, Rollo), set aside the labor arbiter’s decision and entered a new one, finding Ricardo’s dismissal illegal and ordering his reinstatement with backwages. However, aware that strained relations had developed between the parties, the Commission ordered GT Printers to pay Ricardo backwages for three (3) years and separation pay of one month for every year of service in lieu of reinstatement.

GT Printers filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari, with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. On July 29, 1991, the Court issued a temporary restraining order upon petitioner’s filing a P100,00 bond enjoining the respondents to desist from enforcing the NLRC decision during the pendency of this action.

The petition for review is premised on the petitioner’s contention that grave abuse of discretion was committed by the NLRC —

1. in disregarding the labor arbiter’s findings of fact;

2. in finding that Ricardo was denied due process before being dismissed on July 18, 1986;

3. in finding that Ricardo was dismissed without just cause; and

4. in reversing the decision of the labor arbiter and ordering Ricardo’s reinstatement with payment of back wages and separation pay.

The petition has merit.

The twin requirements of a valid termination; due process and just cause — were met substantially for Ricardo was given ample opportunity to appear at the two scheduled investigations in order to present his side, but he chose to boycott the investigation. Even at the hearing before the Labor Arbiter, he waived, through counsel, the presentation and cross-examination of witnesses.

Due process does not necessarily mean or require a hearing, but simply an opportunity or right to be heard (Hian v. CTA, 59 SCRA 110; Azul v. Castro, 133 SCRA 271). The affidavits, testimonies and other documentary evidence presented by the petitioner stand uncontroverted and are therefore entitled to full credit. It is well-settled that this Court is not a trier of facts, so we defer to the superior opportunity of the lower courts or administrative bodies to test the credibility of the witnesses and to examine the authenticity of the documentary evidence directly before them (Mapa v. Arroyo, 175 SCRA 76; Dagupan Bus Co., Inc., v. NLRC, 191 SCRA 328).

The security of tenure accorded to labor under the Constitution does not embrace infractions of accepted company rules amounting to branch of trust and loss of confidence (Rosello, Jr. v. NLRC, 190 SCRA 779). The right of an employer to dismiss a managerial employee for breach of trust and loss of confidence, as in this case, cannot be doubted. As a measure of self-preservation against acts inimical to its interests, an employer has the right to dismiss an employee found committing acts of dishonesty and disloyalty. The employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such a person whose continuance in the service would patently be inimical to his employer’s interest (Colgate Palmolive Phils. Inc. v. Ople, 163 SCRA 323). The dismissal of a dishonest employee is in the best interest not only of management but also of labor for the law never intended to impose an unjust situation on either labor or management (Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc. v. NLRC, 172 SCRA 751).chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Reinstatement would be ill-advised and incompatible with the labor arbiter’s finding that "from those documentary evidences presented by respondent, it can be safely conclude[d] that . . . there exist visible conflict of interest amounting to willful breach of trust and confidence repose (sic) upon him by his employer, . . . as well as (b) habitual neglect of his duties . . ." (pp. 216-217, Rollo). The reinstatement of erring managers may not be ordered with the same ease and liberality as rank and file workers (Pacific Cement Co., Inc. v. NLRC, 173 SCRA 192).

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the NLRC is hereby reversed and set aside. As the complaint (herein private respondent), Edwin Ricardo, was lawfully dismissed for dishonesty and serious misconduct, his complaint for illegal dismissal is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., is on leave.




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






April-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. 81559-60 April 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. DAVID G. NITAFAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84525 April 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO L. MAUYAO

  • G.R. No. 96401 April 6, 1992 - NEMESIO N. ATIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77365 April 7, 1992 - RITA CALEON v. AGUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87880 April 7, 1992 - CECILIA MATA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 88515-16 April 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLY P. BAGAWE

  • G.R. No. 93355 April 7, 1992 - LUIS B. DOMINGO v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97308 April 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PETER HATAGUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95907 April 8, 1992 - JOSE REYNANTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100599 April 8, 1992 - AL-AMANAH ISLAMIC INVESTMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-90-417 April 10, 1992 - JOSE A. GALAN v. EVELYN NAPASE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49019 April 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CITY COURT, BRANCH III OF GENERAL SANTOS CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67485 April 10, 1992 - NACUSIP v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72247 April 10, 1992 - RED V COCONUT PRODUCTS, LTD. v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79316 April 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO NUÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 82067 April 10, 1992 - LUCILYN T. ZAMBRANO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90015 April 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO C. VENTURA

  • G.R. No. 93408 April 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO M. CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 94070 April 10, 1992 - ROSALINDA DE PERIO SANTOS v. CATALINO MACARAIG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94755 April 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO A. MORENO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97217 April 10, 1992 - CHEMPHIL EXPORT AND IMPORT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97434 April 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO DEVELLES

  • G.R. No. 97637 April 10, 1992 - WILMON AUTO SUPPLY CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 98340-42 April 10, 1992 - MARIANO J. PIMENTEL, ET AL. v. FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101476 April 14, 1992 - EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE AUTHORITY v. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103524 April 15, 1992 - CESAR BENGZON, ET AL. v. FRANKLIN N. DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49983 April 20, 1992 - FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87644 April 20, 1992 - G & P MANPOWER SERVICES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89454 April 20, 1992 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 27876 April 22, 1992 - ADELAIDA S. MANECLANG v. JUAN T. BAUN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60222 April 22, 1992 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 76002 April 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULITO NAGUITA

  • G.R. No. 76265 April 22, 1992 - VIRGINIA CALALANG v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 83837-42 April 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92403 April 22, 1992 - VICTOR A. AQUINO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91636 April 23, 1992 - PETER JOHN D. CALDERON v. BARTOLOME CARALE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101028 April 23, 1992 - FELICIANA LICAYAN TALE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87186 April 24, 1992 - CAMILO VILLA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94546 April 24, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANFILO DIGA

  • G.R. No. 97039 April 24, 1992 - CONCORDIO ABELLANA, SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100749 April 24, 1992 - GT PRINTERS, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.