ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 156270.January 29, 2003]
PANGANIBAN & FIGURACION vs. NAT'L. POWER CORP.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 29 JAN 2003.
G.R. No. 156270(Ronnie M. Panganiban and Angelito G. Figuracion vs. National Power Corporation.)
The instant petition stemmed from another case of the same title docketed as G.R. No. 150143.In G.R. No. 150143, petitioners filed on October 17, 2001 a MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION. In a Resolution dated November 14, 2001, this Court denied the motion for failing to submit proof of service of the motion on the Court of Appeals as required under Sec. 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Despite the denial, petitioners filed on November 16, 2001 a Petition for Review assailing the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 61566 dated April 6, 2001 and September 25, 2001, respectively. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads, viz:
"WHEREFORE, the petition for review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 002224 dated September 29, 2000 insofar as it absolved private respondents Ronnie M. Panganiban and Angelito G. Figuracion from the charge of Grave Misconduct is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the Decision of National Power Corporation President Federico E. Puno ordering their dismissal from the service is REINSTATED. With respect to private respondent Patricio F. Quicho, the CSC Resolution ordering his reinstatement is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
On December 12, 2001, the Court issued a Resolution denying the petition for review for late filing as it was filed beyond the extended period pursuant to Sec. 5(a), Rule 56 and for insufficient or defective verification under Sec. 4, Rule 7 of the Rules. On January 18, 2002, petitioners moved for reconsideration. In a Resolution dated February 6, 2002, the Court denied with finality the said Motion for Reconsideration considering that there is no compelling reason to warrant a modification of the Court's resolution. On March 21, 2002, the Resolution of December 12, 2001 became final and executory and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments.
In the case at bar, petitioners seek to set aside the Entry of Judgment issued in G.R. No. 150143 and to reverse and set aside the decision of the CA dated April 6, 2001 ordering their dismissal from service. Petitioners contend that the ground upon which the denial of the Motion for Extension is premised is a case of an oversight, considering that a clear receiving stamp-machine imprint of the receiving section of the CA appears on the face of the Affidavit of Service attached to the motion which reads:"01 OCT 17 P3:59".
In support of their prayer for issuance of TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction, petitioners allege that NPC issued a letter dated November 17, 2002 addressed to petitioner Panganiban directing him to accomplish all necessary clearances and to turn over all pending works and assignments to his immediate supervisor effective immediately in view of the decision of NPC dismissing him from service which was sustained by the CA.
We find the petition at bar bereft of merit. A perusal of the records in G.R. No. 150143 shows that the copy of the Motion for Extension filed with this Court does not bear the alleged receiving stamp machine imprint of the CA. It also appears that petitioners did not file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's resolution denying their motion.For this reason, the Petition for Review was denied for late filing. When the petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated December 12, 2001, the Court's Resolution dated November 14, 2001 denying their Motion for Extension had already attained finality.
Be that as it may, petitioners invoke the liberal interpretation of the Rules and contend that technicalities should be set aside in the interest of substantial justice. We agree and conducted a rigorous study of the case. We, however, hold that the decision of the Court of Appeals is supported by the evidence of the parties.
The evidence reveals that petitioners were accused of stealing twenty-eight (28) pieces of stainless C-bars, 2 1/2 inches wide and 6 1/2 feet long from the warehouse of the Bataan Combined Cycle Power Plant (BCCPP), Limay, Bataan.Upon presentation of both testimonial and documentary evidence by the parties, the NPC's Board of Inquiry and Discipline recommended the dismissal of the petitioners from the service which was adopted by the NPC President in his letter dated May 25, 1999. Petitioners appealed to the Civil Service Commission which ordered NPC to reinstate them. NPC elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, with Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando as ponente, reversed and set aside the CSC Resolution and reinstated the decision of the NPC ordering petitioners' dismissal from service.
In assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals, petitioners mainly rely on the alleged inconsistencies and ambiguities in the testimony of Levi Morales, the security guard on duty at Gate 3 of the BCCPP on the date of the incident. Morales testified that at 10:00 a.m. of that date, NPC Boom Truck with plate no. SDJ-713 driven by petitioner Figuracion entered the gate of the BCCPP warehouse. On board the boom truck were petitioners Panganiban and Quicho, as well as three (3) employees of Service Filipino, Inc. (SFI).
In the warehouse, the group loaded steel pipes and C-bars on the truck.When the boom truck left the warehouse, Morales called Magat, the security guard on duty at the warehouse to verify if the pipes and C-bars were duly accounted in the gate pass and was informed that Magat did not notice it. From Gate 2, Morales observed that the boom truck turned right to the national road going in the direction of the Bataan Thermal Power Plant (BTPP), but after a distance of 120 meters, it slowed down and turned left towards a street in Barangay Marsteel. The boom truck then went back to the national road and proceeded to BTPP. Morales relayed the matter to Magat who went to Gate 3. Morales, together with Magat, Daquigan and security guard Collarina, went to the place where they saw the boom truck stopped and found Solomon Remorin, an employee of SFI, with the stolen C-bars. Remorin implicated petitioners in the unauthorized withdrawal of the C-bars.
The Court of Appeals gave credence to Morales' testimony and we find no cogent reason to reverse its finding. The appellate court held:
"From the foregoing, it is clear that Security Guard Morales did not immediately accost private respondents and the three SFI employees when they were loading the pipes and stainless C-bars on the boom truck and when he spoke to one of them, considering that, at that time, he had no grounds to suspect the alleged theft. At that time, he did not know that they were not supposed to bring out the said C-bars, considering that he did not have in his possession the gate pass, nor could he have gotten his hands on the same, as he was in charge of Gate 3, and the boom truck entered and left through Gate 2.
On the other hand, it was his duty to observe and report any events occurring within the range of his observation. This he did, when he recorded his observations as to the loadings of the materials on the boom truck by Engr. Panganiban and his party.
Morales' suspicions were aroused only when the truck stopped after leaving the warehouse, and one of the SFI employees went back to the warehouse and returned carrying stainless C-bars. It was his duty to convey his suspicions to the guard at Gate 2, where the boom truck was supposed to exit. Instead, it was Senior Security Guard Magat who answered, saying that he did not see any stainless C-bars on the boom truck. By the time Magat responded to Morales' radio call, the boom truck had already been inspected by Lady Guard Wilma Gargaritano (who found no C-bars) and had already driven away, so Magat tried to pursue the truck. xxx
It is clear that Security Guard Morales, contrary to the ruling of the CSC, acted well within his duties in reporting the events within his observation. It was not his fault that the boom truck was allowed to leave Gate 2. His version of the events should be given full faith and credence." [1] cralaw
Petitioners likewise try to impress upon the Court that considering that the C-bars had no cover and it was in broad daylight when the questioned incident occurred, security guards Gargaritano and Magat should have seen the C-bars loaded on the boom truck when they inspected it. The CA correctly rejected the argument by ruling, thus:
"The fact that Lady Guard Wilma Gargaritano did not find any C-bars on the boom truck when she inspected the same does not necessarily mean that there was none. Senior Security Guard Jesus Magat, Jr. declared that Gargaritano was new in the job. The gate pass did not mention any C-bars. Furthermore, the first inkling that there were actually C-bars on the truck came only when Security Guard Morales radioed Magat, at which time the inspection was already finished and the truck had driven away, prompting Magat to get into his vehicle to chase it.
Likewise, the manner by which the C-bars were hidden in the boom truck is shown by the Gate Pass where the pipes mentioned are either 8 inches or 10 inches in diameter. Thus, the Board of Inquiry and Discipline concluded as follows:
'The fact that the truck was inspected and the security guard did not see any C-bars does not present a conclusive presumption that none of these materials were loaded thereat. The lady security guard is new in the job. She only checked if the visible cargoes tally with those listed in the gate pass. The truck was loaded with 2 pieces of pipes Cs 10" 0 x 20' and 2 pieces of pipes CS 8" 0 x 20'. These pipes are hollow with 8 inches and 10 inches diameters and 20 feet long enough to hide 28 pieces of stainless C-bars placed inside it. This is the logical explanation why the security guard did not see the stainless C-bars that were possibly hidden in the hole of the pipes. While Jesus Magat was in the gate he did not personally check it. He only looked at the gate pass and instructed the lady security guard on what to do.'" [2] cralaw
In fine, the participation of the petitioners in the unauthorized withdrawal of the C-bars had been established by substantial evidence. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied where the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and his participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position. [3] cralaw Again, the Court of Appeals rightly held, thus:
"On the part of the leader of the group, private respondent Panganiban, the fact that the loading of the C-bars was done in his presence when the gate pass he signed was only for the pipes, shows that it was his intention all along to bring the C-bars outside the BCCPP, even if these were not covered by the gate pass. Such loading was not merely with his tolerance, but with his authority and supervision, considering that he was the leader of the group which went to the BCCPP warehouse with the intent to withdraw materials. He is liable for the theft of the C-bars in question.
With regard to private respondent Figuracion, his participation in the theft was indispensable, for he was the driver of the boom truck. As such, it is unbelievable that he could not have been unaware (sic) of the loading of the materials on the truck which he was driving. The theft of the C-bars, which were loaded on the truck he was driving, could have been done only with his active participation.
Furthermore, his allegation that he stopped merely to allow one of the persons riding at the back to urinate, makes his version of the events most unworthy of belief. If he did so, he could have merely pulled over on the side of the national road. He did not do so. Instead, he was seen by Security Guard Morales making a left turn in a street in Barangay Marsteel, after which he stopped. After a while, he backed the truck into the national road and drove away to BTPP. This is an unnatural behavior for one who merely allowed a passenger to urinate. It should likewise be noted that it was in the area where the truck stopped that Daquigan, Collarina and Morales found the purloined C-bars as well as one of the SF1 employees, Solomon Remorin after their fruitless chase of the boom truck. The conclusion is inescapable that he stopped the truck in said place precisely to unload the C-bars in question where they were later found by the guards." [4] cralaw
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw CA Decision dated April 6, 2001, pp. 11-12.
[2] cralaw Id., pp. 14-15.
[3] cralaw Consolidated Foods Corporation vs. NLRC, 315 SCRA 129 (1999).
[4] cralaw Supra note 1, pp. 16-17.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
