SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 119509. February 11, 1999]
ENRIQUE A. ARBOLEDA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
This petition for certiorari
seeks to reverse and set aside for grave abuse of discretion the decision of
respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated 29 November 1994
reversing that of the Labor Arbiter sustaining petitioner.
Enrique A. Arboleda was an
employee of Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) for twenty-five (25) years. He served from 1963 to 11 February 1988 when
he was dismissed by MERALCO under Sec. 7, par. 1, of its Company Code of
Employee Discipline for misappropriating or withholding company funds. His record shows that he rose from the ranks
to become branch clerk, and later, radio operator of MERALCO's Novaliches
branch.
On 18 July 1986 a certain Antonio
D. Sy applied for electrical service for
his residence and for his
hardware store situated in the premises leased to him by the spouses Renato and
Sylvia Cruz. Pending the processing of
his application, Sy was found to have illegal electrical connection, first on 6
March 1987, and then on 8 June 1987.
According to Sy, on 9 June 1987 he
went to the MERALCO office in Novaliches to pay for his Found Connection (FC)
bills.[1] There he met petitioner Arboleda who told him that
he had to pay his FC bills amounting to around P2,000.00 for three (3)
months before a meter could be installed.
Sy demurred saying he had with him only P1,200.00. Petitioner agreed to accept the amount so Sy
handed it to him who received it without issuing any official receipt. Thereafter petitioner sent over Brigido
"Adu" Anonuevo and a certain "Mulong" to install the meter.[2]
Marcelo P. Umali, then branch
manager of MERALCO at Novaliches, narrated that on 16 June 1987 he happened to
pass by Sy's house and noticed the illegal connection. He immediately confronted Sy who protested
that he had paid his FC bills to petitioner.[3] Umali then interviewed Sylvia Cruz about Sy's claims
and she confirmed them.[4]
Sy immediately settled his FC
bills with MERALCO for which he was issued an official receipt. On 18 June 1987, after complying with all
the requirements of MERALCO, his application for electrical service was
granted. On the same day, Umali
submitted his recommendation to his immediate supervisor, R. A. Villanueva, to have Arboleda investigated.[5]
On 21 October 1987 Atty. Anecito
A. Mejorada of MERALCO's Special Presidential Committee wrote petitioner
Arboleda notifying him that on 27 October 1987
an investigation would be conducted against him for misappropriation of
FC bills,[6] but petitioner sought a
postponement of the investigation.[7] On 7 November 1987 he was suspended pending his investigation.[8] On 9 November 1987 the investigation proceeded with
Juanito Rivera, Chief Steward and Vice-President of the employees' labor union,
as petitioner's representative. In the
investigation, Arboleda made a general denial about knowing Sy, "Adu" and "Mulong."[9] He claimed that sometime thereafter Brigido Anonuevo
went to his house bringing his Affidavit of Justification, Certificate of
Attendance at a MERALCO Seminar and Sy's Affidavit of Desistance.[10] On 21 November 1987 petitioner wrote the MERALCO
investigators Jose Benalla and Eligio Reonal, Jr., informing them of
the visit of Anonuevo and his
wife to Sy's house along with Sylvia Cruz.[11] Despite his suspension which lasted until his
dismissal, petitioner continued to receive his salary of P11,332.50 from
20 December 1987 to 11 February 1988.[12]
On 20 April 1988 Arboleda filed a
case against MERALCO for illegal dismissal.
He was subsequently sustained by the Labor Arbiter on three (3)
grounds: (a) Sy's accusation against
him was only prompted by Umali; (b) Sy's credibility was suspect since he was
apprehended thrice for illegal use of electric current; and, (c) Sy's motive
was malicious and his testimony was made only to save his own skin.[13]
On appeal by MERALCO the NLRC
reversed the Labor Arbiter on the ground that there was no proof of instigation
on the part of Umali; Sy's testimony was credible; and, Anonuevo's exculpating
evidence in favor of Arboleda was a ruse.[14]
The principle that factual
findings of administrative bodies are binding upon this Court may be sustained
only when no issue of credibility is raised.
But when the findings of fact of the NLRC do not agree with those of the
Labor Arbiter, this Court must of necessity review the records to determine
which findings should be preferred as more conformable to the evidentiary
facts.[15]
The main issue being the legality
of petitioner's dismissal, it may be worth to look into the requisites for the
validity of a dismissal, namely, (a) the employee must be afforded due process,
i.e., he must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself, and
(b) the dismissal must be for a valid cause as provided in Art. 282 of the
Labor Code.[16]
As regards his right to due
process, petitioner contends that he was denied such right during the investigation
conducted by MERALCO as he did not have the opportunity to confront the
witnesses against him.
The essence of due process in
administrative proceedings is an opportunity to explain one's side or an
opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Before an employee can be validly dismissed,
the Labor Code requires the employer to furnish the employee with two (2)
written notices: (a) a written notice
containing a statement of the cause for termination to afford the employee
ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the assistance of his
representative, if he so desires; and, (b) if the employer decides to terminate
the services of the employee, the employer must notify him in writing of the
decision to dismiss him, stating clearly the reasons therefor.[17] This MERALCO more than substantially complied with
when it notified Arboleda in a letter dated 21 October 1987 of the charges
against him and of his right to be represented by a lawyer or representative,
and when it gave him notice by letter dated 11 February 1988 of his dismissal
and the reasons therefor.
The requirement of notice and
hearing in termination cases does not connote full adversarial proceedings as
elucidated in numerous cases decided by this Court. Actual adversarial proceedings become necessary only for
clarification or when there is a need to propound searching questions to
witnesses who give vague testimonies.
This is a procedural right which the employee must ask for since it is
not an inherent right, and summary proceedings may be conducted thereon.[18]
In termination cases the settled
rule is that the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or
authorized cause rests on the employer.[19] Thus, MERALCO must not only rely on the weakness of
petitioner's evidence but must stand on the merits of its own defense.
The core of MERALCO's evidence is
the testimony of Alberto Sy who identified petitioner Arboleda as the one
who received P1,200.00 from him for purposes of paying
off his FC arrears and for which Arboleda did not issue an official
receipt. This testimony of Sy was
discredited by the Labor Arbiter in his belief that Sy did so with the ulterior
motive of avoiding criminal prosecution because of his illegal connection and
that he only complained due to the instigation of Umali, the Novaliches branch
manager. But the NLRC believed that Sy
categorically denounced Arboleda without any promptings from Umali and that,
despite petitioner's denials, Anonuevo was known to petitioner. For, why else would Anonuevo come out in
defense of the latter? In fact, the
NLRC explicitly termed the testimony of Anonuevo as a ruse.
We agree with the NLRC. Sy categorically and spontaneously denounced
Arboleda without any prodding from Umali.[20] It may be recalled that Umali only asked Sy why he
had an FC.[21] Perhaps Umali did not even expect Sy to implicate
anyone from MERALCO as the culprit, much less think of Arboleda as the guilty
party, especially when there was no showing of any enmity between them. Apparently, when Sy mentioned Arboleda's
name, it was more out of indignation that the electrical connection should be
found to be illegal when he had paid for its proper and legitimate connection. Sy's alarm was understandable in the light
of the two (2) instances when he was found to have illegal connections. That the testimony of Sy is credible is
shown by the fact that his statements were replete with consistent and positive
details congruent with human experience.
Testimony is positive when the witness affirms that a fact did or did
not occur, and negative when he says that he did not see or know of the factual
occurrence. Positive testimony is
entitled to greater weight than negative testimony.[22]
There is nothing on record to
indicate any ulterior motive on the part of Sy to fabricate his testimony. The finding of the Labor Arbiter that Sy
only denounced Arboleda to save his own skin from possible criminal prosecution
may be explained by these questions:
Why would Sy implicate Arboleda when, according Arboleda, seconded by
Anonuevo, they had never met before?
Why did Sy not name Anonuevo instead as the one to whom he paid the
money? Absent convincing evidence
showing any cogent reason why a witness should testify falsely, his testimony
may be accorded full faith and credit.[23]
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is
not required for a judgment on the legality of an employee's dismissal, nor
even preponderance of evidence for that matter, substantial evidence being
sufficient.[24] Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[25]
The nature of petitioner's
testimony is that of a general denial; consequently, as between an affirmative
assertion and a general denial, weight must be accorded to the affirmative
assertion.[26]
Neither can we extend credence to
the testimony of Anonuevo as it is only
in the nature of negative assertions which are obviously in conflict with the
affirmative statements of Sy. Besides,
Anonuevo's testimony runs counter to
the normal course of human behavior.
Anonuevo's act of coming to Arboleda's rescue with an Affidavit of
Justification[27] upon hearing of his investigation makes Anonuevo
speciously suspect. His Affidavit of
Justification although notarized on the 19th of November was actually dated 10
October 1987, or more than twenty (20) days before Arboleda was confidentially
notified of the impending investigation.[28] Anonuevo's explanation that Sy named Arboleda
because he happened to mention the latter's name to Sy is, to say the least,
fatuous. He claimed that he was not on
intimate terms or even familiar with Arboleda, having supposedly seen him only
around MERALCO and only knowing his position therein, yet he had the temerity
to drop Arboleda's name to Sy. This
defies logic and common experience.
Furthermore, Anonuevo's actuations
regarding his supposed contract with Sy
were a little strange. For one,
he seemed confused as to what the contract was all about, whether it was just to
follow up the application for electrical connection, or for payment of FC
bills, or for the installation of electric meters, as he did not seem to know
for what was the amount supposedly given to him by Sy.[29] Stranger still was his
installing the electric meter ahead of paying the FC bills or before getting
the go-signal from MERALCO. All these,
coupled with the fact that in Anonuevo's affidavit[30] he admitted having returned the money to Sy after
learning about Umali's memorandum-complaint against petitioner when such
complaint was supposed to be confidential, clearly demonstrate that Anonuevo
was merely used by the petitioner in an attempt to improve his lot. Thus it is evident that petitioner was
guilty of serious misconduct to warrant his dismissal from the service which,
in this case, was lawfully effected with proper notice and for a just cause.
WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion, the petition
is DISMISSED. The decision of the
National Labor Relations Commission dismissing petitioner's complaint for
illegal dismissal is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena JJ., concur.
[1]
Affidavit of Antonio Sy executed on 9 October 1987, Records, p. 15.
[2]
TSN, 4 April 1990, pp. 16-21.
[3] Id., 7 March 1990, pp. 18-25.
[4] Id., 12 March 1990, pp. 8-9.
[5] Records, p. 55.
[6] Id., p. 58.
[7] Id., pp. 59-60.
[8] Id., p. 64.
[9] Sinumpaang Salaysay of Enrique Arboleda dated 9 November 1987, id., pp. 479-481.
[10] TSN, 14 September 1992, pp. 15-22.
[11] Records, pp. 484-485.
[12] Certification by A.S. Morillo, Manager,
General Payroll, 6 October 1988, id., p. 65.
[13] Decision of Labor Arbiter Salimathar v.
Nambi, 29 December 1993, Records, pp.
717-721.
[14] Decision of NLRC penned by Commissioner
Vicente S. E. Veloso, concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Bartolome S.
Carale and Commissioner Alberto R. Quimpo,
29 November 1994, Rollo, pp. 12-21.
[15] Tanala v. NLRC, G.R. No. 116588, 24
January 1996, 252 SCRA 314, 319.
[16] Pizza Hut/Progressive Development
Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 117059, 29 January 1996, 252 SCRA 531, 535.
[17] See Note 16, pp. 535-536.
[18] Manila Electric Company v. NLRC, G.R. No.
114129, 24 October 1996, 263 SCRA 531, 542, citing Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon
sa Pilipinas v. NLRC, 206 SCRA 109 [1992].
[19] Gesulgon v. NLRC, G.R. No. 90349, 5 March
1993, 219 SCRA 561, 570; Art 277, Labor Code, as amended.
[20] See Note 2.
[21] See Note 3, pp. 21-25.
[22] See
Note 15, pp. 319-320.
[23] People
v. Bernal, G.R. No. 101332, 13 March 1996, 254 SCRA 659, 669-670, citing
People v. Taneo, 281 SCRA 494 [1993].
[24] Domasig v. NLRC, G.R. No. 118101, 16
September 1996, 261 SCRA 779, 786.
[25] Id., p. 785.
[26] Madlos v. NLRC, G.R. No. 115365, 4 March
1996, 254 SCRA 248, 256.
[27] Exh. "D," Records, p. 482.
[28] Id.,
p. 58.
[29] TSN, 16 December 1992, pp. 7-10, 14 - 15.
[30] Records, p. 16.