Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > September 2011 Resolutions > [G.R. No. UDK-14515 : September 19, 2011] FLORENCIO C. CERON, PETITIONER, v. MAYNILAD WATER SERVICES, INC. AND CARLOS C. SALONGA, RESPONDENTS. :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 19 September 2011  which reads as follows:cralaw

G.R. No. UDK-14515 (FLORENCIO C. CERON, petitioner, v.  MAYNILAD WATER SERVICES, INC. and CARLOS C. SALONGA, respondents). - We resolve the motion for reconsideration, filed by petitioner Florencio C. Ceron, of the Court's July 20, 2011 Resolution denying his petition for review on certiorari for lack of payment of the prescribed legal fees pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45, in relation to Section 5(c), Rule 56, of the Rules of Court.

We resolve to grant the motion for reconsideration and reinstate the petition since Florencio properly invoked his status as an indigent litigant. Pursuant to Section 21, Rule 3, of the Rules of Court, indigent litigants are exempted^[1] from paying the legal fees previously stated. Fiorencio, by his submission, sufficiently established^[2] his status as an indigent litigant.

THE FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS 

The petition for review on certiorari stemmed from an illegal dismissal case filed by Florencio against the Maynilad Water Services, Inc. (Maynilad). Florencio was employed by Maynilad as a water maintenance man. On February 28, 2002, Florencio took into custody seven (7) water meters for installation at particular residences of Maynilad clients. This was evidenced by a requisition slip which Florencio himself signed. On the same day, Florencio returned one of the seven meters and then indicated in the requisition slip form that his team installed the other six (6) meters.

It was later discovered that three (3) of the water meters were never installed in the designated residences and were, in fact, on sale at a hardware store. During the internal Maynilad investigation, Florencio admitted that he signed the receipt for seven (7) meters but claimed lack of knowledge on how the three (3) meters ended up for sale at a hardware store. After deliberations, Maynilad found Florencio guilty of violations of the Labor Code and of the Company's Code of Conduct.

Proceedings before the Labor Arbiter (LA)
and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) 

Florencio's case for illegal dismissal before the LA was initially dismissed, without prejudice, due to his failure to file his position paper. Florencio revived the case three (3) years thereafter. After due hearings and deliberations, the LA ruled in Florencio's favor, finding Maynilad guilty of illegal dismissal.

On appeal, the NLRC reversed the LA. The latter likewise dismissed the motion for reconsideration filed by Florencio.

Proceedings before the Court of
Appeals (CA) 

The CA upheld the NLRC and found Florencio to have been lawfully dismissed for a just cause. The CA upheld the factual finding of the NLRC that the water meters could not have ended up for sale at a hardware store if Florencio had not been in connivance with the owner of the store. Florencio, himself, signed the receipt of the three (3) meters as evidenced by the requisition slip. He was given the responsibility to take custody of the meters, to install them or, if not installed, to return them to the main office. At the very least, the CA found that Florencio had been negligent in his work since he failed to account for the meters. The CA found this evidence sufficient to establish Florencio's willful breach of trust, justifying Maynilad's termination of his employment.

THE PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI 

In the petition, Florencio challenges the findings of fact made by the CA. Florencio claims that the CA failed to consider several circumstances that would negate his liability for willful breach of trust. First, he did not have exclusive control of the meters. He was merely part of a small group of maintenance men. Second, he did not bother to count the exact number of meters that were allegedly inside the box; thus, he did not actually know the number of meters inside the box. Third, he was not the person authorized to account for the water meters; his foreman, Mr. Isaias, was. Fourth, he disputes the authenticity of his signature on the requisition slip. Finally, there is no sufficient evidence of negligence and willful breach of trust against him. The CA erred in upholding the NLRC's supposition that since he was the last one in custody of the meters, he was responsible for the same. This presumption, Florencio insists, cannot stand.

COURT'S RESOLUTION 

The Court resolves to deny the petition for review on certiorari  for lack of reversible error on the part of the CA.

Initially, Florencio's petition seeks a review of the factual findings of the NLRC, as affirmed by the CA. On this ground alone, the petition must be dismissed.

Even if we were to apply the jurisprudential exceptions to the rule that the Supreme Court does not resolve questions of fact, Florencio's contentions likewise fail.

First, the NLRC and the CA found that Florencio signed the requisition slip, thereby making him the official custodian of the meters in question. The Court is aware of Florencio's vehement denial of the authenticity of the signatures on the requisition slip. However, since the Court has no facility to confirm or deny this claim, it is constrained to adopt the factual findings of the NLRC,^[3]  as affirmed by the CA. Consequently, his first, second and third contentions are negated since he was, officially, the custodian of the meters.

Second, even if there is no direct evidence to prove that he connived with the hardware store, his official custodian status over the meters sufficiently establishes his negligence and, consequently, his liability. Florencio must be reminded that even in criminal cases, circumstantial evidence^[4] may establish the guilt of an individual. In any case, he was the person given direct responsibility for the meters. His failure to account for the entrusted equipment is clearly a willful breach of Maynilad's trust.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS  petitioner Florencio C. Ceron's motion for reconsideration of its July 20, 2011 Resolution, and reinstates the petition for review on certiorari.  However, the Court RESOLVES to DENY the petition for review on certiorari for the petitioner's failure to show any reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA 
  Division Clerk of Court

 

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Section 21. Indigent party. � A party may be authorized to litigate his action, claim or defense as an indigent if the court, upon an ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family.

Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of docket and other lawful fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may order to be furnished him. The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which the indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent, unless the court otherwise provides.

Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court. If the court should determine after hearing that the party declared as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or property, the proper docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed and collected by the clerk of court. If payment is not made within the time fixed by the court, execution shall issue for the payment thereof, without prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose.

^[2] Rollo, pp. 295-298.

^[3] See the Court's Resolution in Alunday v. Secretary of National Defense, G.R. No. 146732, March 9, 2005.

^[4] RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, Section 4.

^[*] Carpio, J., on official leave; Brion, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 1083 dated September 13, 2011.

^[**] Carpio, J., on official leave; Velasco, Jr., J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 1084 dated September 13, 2011.