Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
ROMEO E.
PAULINO, Petitioner, - versus - NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY,
INCORPORATED. Respondents. |
G.R. No. 176184 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRION, VILLARAMA,* PEREZ, and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: June 13, 2012 |
x- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -x
D E C I S I O N
SERENO, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for
Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking a
review of the Court of Appeals (CA) 31 August 2006 Decision and 29 December
2006 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 89267. The appellate court affirmed the 23
September 2002 Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in
Case No. NLRC NCR CA No. 022744-00, which upheld the dismissal of petitioners
Complaint for Illegal Dismissal.
The undisputed facts are as follows:
On 16 January 1995, petitioner, who was then
employed by private respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc.
(PLDT) as Cable Splicer III,[1]
surrendered his service vehicle to PLDTs motor pool for body repairs. For this
reason, he unloaded the company-issued plant materials contained in the vehicle
and stored them at his residence for safekeeping.[2]
For 1 month and 11 days, PLDTs properties were in
the custody of petitioner. Thus, on 27 February
1995, members of the Philippine National Police (PNP), armed with a search
warrant,[3]
searched his house where the following items were taken:[4]
a)
95
pcs soldering wire
b)
4
pcs electrical tape
c)
1
roll aluminum tape
d)
1
box drive ring & C-nob
e)
roll C-R tape
f)
19
pcs. 12x20 lead sheets
g)
4
pcs. Protector
h)
61
pcs single drove
i)
9
boxes staple wire
j)
40
pcs span clamps
k)
2
pcs safety belt
l)
1
chipping (skinning) knife
m)
2
manhole ladders
n)
1
PLDT yellow tool box
o)
1/3
roll jacketed wire
p)
2
pcs. bandage
q)
4
pcs. C-clamps
r)
1
pc. 5x10 Aerial Tent
s)
1
roll parallel wire
t)
2
pcs. 17x20 lead sheets
u)
5
pcs. Connecting blocks
v)
2
boxes screws
w)
7
pcs. Briddle ring
x)
1
yellow hard hat
y)
1
gun tacker
z)
1
wooden dresser
aa)
2
telephone instruments
bb)
Aerial
cable (Piece Out Wire)
At that time, based on the investigation by the PNP,
petitioner did not present any documents or requisition slips that would
justify his possession of the materials.[5]
Consequently, PLDT caused the filing of an Information for qualified theft
against him.[6]
The next day, PLDT issued an invitation to V.
Pesayco, the manager of petitioner, requesting him to make petitioner available
to clarify certain matters.[7]
Petitioner attended this meeting along with his lawyer, but PLDTs
investigators merely talked with the counsel.[8]
PLDT then received a security report stating that petitioner had engaged in the
illicit disposal of its plant materials, which were recovered during the search
conducted at his residence.[9]
On 3 April 1995, PLDT issued an Inter-Office Memo
requiring petitioner to explain why he should not be terminated from employment
for serious misconduct (theft of company property).[10]
The Memo also gave him the option to ask for a formal hearing of his case. In reply,
he requested that the proceedings be held in abeyance until the criminal case against him had been concluded.[11]
Then, on 26 May 1995, Pesayco informed petitioner in
writing that since his reply did not provide any clarification whatsoever that
would have warranted an evaluation of his case, the company was terminating his
services effective on the said date.[12]
Three years later, after the criminal case for qualified
theft had been terminated for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, petitioner filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal
which the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed for utter lack of merit.[13]
The LA found petitioners possession of valuable and material company
properties to be highly suspect.[14]
In addition, it was fully irregular that a highly efficient Company, such as
herein respondent, would allow any of its employees to place expensive and
necessary properties for personal safe-keeping.[15]
Aggrieved, petitioner pursued his action before the NLRC.
The labor court, however, affirmed the LAs Decision in toto.[16]
Thus, petitioner appealed to the CA.
Ruling against petitioner, the CA held thus:[17]
To
our mind, the fact alone that several company properties were found in
petitioners residence is sufficient circumstance to put any employer on guard
and is already reasonable basis for private respondents loss of trust and
confidence that would justify his dismissal from employment.
Before this Court, petitioner raises the sole issue of
whether or not the CA gravely erred in upholding his dismissal as valid based
on just cause.
The Labor Code recognizes that an employer, for just
cause, may validly terminate the services of an employee for serious misconduct
or willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the employer or representative
in connection with the employees work.[18]
Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed by the employer in
the former, or simply loss of confidence, also justifies an employees
dismissal from employment.[19]
The LA, the NLRC and the CA all acknowledged that,
notwithstanding petitioners acquittal in the criminal case for qualified
theft,[20]
respondent PLDT had adequately established the basis for the companys loss of
confidence as a just cause to terminate petitioner. This Court finds that approach
to be correct, since proof beyond reasonable doubt of an employees misconduct
is not required in dismissing an employee.[21] Rather, as opposed to the proof
beyond reasonable doubt standard of evidence required in criminal cases, labor
suits require only substantial evidence to prove the validity of the dismissal.[22]
Willful breach of trust or loss of confidence requires
that the employee (1) occupied a position of trust or (2) was routinely charged
with the care of the employers property.[23]
As correctly appreciated by the CA, petitioner was charged with the care and
custody of PLDTs property.
To warrant dismissal based on loss of confidence,
there must be some basis for the
loss of trust or the employer must have reasonable grounds to believe that the
employee is responsible for misconduct that renders the latter unworthy of the
trust and confidence demanded by his or her position.[24]
Here, petitioner disputes the sufficiency of PLDTs basis for loss of trust and
confidence. He alleges that he did not steal the plant materials, considering
that he had lawful possession.[25]
However, assuming that he lawfully possessed the
materials, PLDT still had ample reason or
basis to already distrust petitioner. For more than a month, he did not
even inform PLDT of the whereabouts of the plant materials. Instead, he stocked
these materials at his residence even if they were needed in the daily
operations of the company. In keeping with the honesty and integrity demanded
by his position, he should have turned over these materials to the plants
warehouse.
The fact that petitioner did not present any
documents or requisition slips at the time that the PNP took the plant
materials logically excites suspicion. In addition, PLDT received a security
report stating that petitioner had engaged in the illicit disposal of its plant
materials, which were recovered during the search conducted at his residence
Thus, PLDT reasonably suspected petitioner of
stealing the companys property. At that juncture, the employer may already dismiss
the employee since it had reasonable grounds to believe or to entertain the
moral conviction that the latter was responsible for the misconduct, and the
nature of his participation therein rendered him absolutely unworthy of the
trust and confidence demanded by his position.[26]
In a final effort to impugn his dismissal,
petitioner claims that he could only be faulted for breaching PLDTs rules and
regulations which prohibited the employees from bringing home company
materials.[27]
In this regard, petitioner exacerbates his position.
By admitting that he breached company rules, he buttressed his employers claim
that he committed serious misconduct.
Employees cannot take company rules for granted,
especially in this case where petitioners breach involved various plant
materials that may cause major disruption in the companys operations. Indeed, an
employer may discharge an employee for refusal to obey a reasonable company
rule.[28]
As
a rule, although this Court leans over backwards to help workers and employees
continue with their employment, acts of dishonesty in the handling of company
property are a different matter.[29]
Given these circumstances, it would have been unfair
for PLDT to keep petitioner in its employ. Petitioner displayed actions that
made him untrustworthy. Thus, as a measure of self-protection,[30]
PLDT validly terminated his services for serious misconduct and loss of
confidence.
Having established the validity of petitioners
dismissal, we sustain the rulings of the tribunals a quo. To emphasize, our empathy with the cause of labor should
not blind us to the rights of management. This Court should stamp out, rather
than tolerate, the commission of irregular acts wherever these are noted.
Malpractices should not be allowed to continue but should be rebuked.[31]
IN VIEW
THEREOF, the assailed 31 August 2006 Decision and 29 December 2006
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 8926 7 are AFFIRMED. The 23 February 2007 Petition
for Review filed by Romeo E. Paulino is hereby denied for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
MARIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE
Associate
Justice
I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
The Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)
* Designated
additional member per Raffle dated 11 June
2012 in lieu of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes who took no part in view
of prior action in the lower court.
[1] As Cable
Splicer III, his specific functions included cable pressurization, the repair
of leaks and flow analysis. PLDTs Memorandum, p. 1; rollo, p. 240.
[2] Petitioners
Petition for Review, p. 4; rollo, p.
13.
[3] Issued by Judge Marciano
Bacalla; rollo, p. 93.
[4] CA Decision penned by Associate
Justice Magdangal M. de Leon, with Associate Justices Rebecca de Guia-Salvador
and Ramon R. Garcia concurring, p. 2; rollo,
p. 28.
[5] Rollo, p. 94.
[6] Rollo, p. 96.
[7] Rollo, p. 129.
[8] Supra note 2, at 14.
[9] Inter-Office
Memo; rollo, p. 98.
[10] Id.
[11] Petitioners
5 April 1995 Letter; rollo, p. 99.
[12] Rollo, p. 100.
[13] LAs
Decision, p. 7; rollo, p. 126.
[14] Id. at 4;
rollo, p. 123.
[15] Id.
[16] NLRCs
Decision, p. 7; rollo, p. 155.
[17] Supra
note 4, at 32.
[18] Labor Code, Art. 282.
[19] Id.
[20] Rollo, p. 59.
[21] Reyes v. Minister of Labor, 252 Phil. 131 (1989).
[22] Metro Transit Organization, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 440 Phil. 473
(2002).
[23] Mabeza v. National Labor Relations Commission, 338
Phil. 386 (1997).
[24] Central Pangasinan Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Macaraeg, 443
Phil. 866 (2003).
[25] Supra
note 2, at 19.
[26] Del Carmen v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 93413,
28 October 1991, 203 SCRA 245.
[27] Supra note 2, at 21.
[28] Lagatic v. National Labor Relations Commission, 349 Phil. 172
(1998).
[29] Firestone Rubber Company of the Philippines v.
Lariosa, 232 Phil. 201 (1987).
[30] Supra note 21.
[31] Supra note 26, at 251.