G.R. No. 85668 August 10, 1989
Gelmart Industries Phils., Inc., petitioner, vs. The Hon. National Labor Relations Commission and Felix Francis, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Felix Francis, an auto-mechanic for petitioner Gelmart Industries since 1971, was caught on April 11, 1987, taking out of the company premises a plastic container filled with approximately 16 ounces of used motor oil without a required gate pass. Following company rules classifying theft or pilferage as grounds for outright termination, he was preventively suspended and, after investigation, dismissed on May 20, 1987. Francis filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, ordering reinstatement with full backwages, reasoning that the used motor oil was waste with no value to the company; thus, its taking did not constitute theft as it caused no deprivation of company property.
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the illegality of the dismissal but modified the award, ordering reinstatement with payment of backwages equivalent to only six months. Gelmart filed this special civil action for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The Solicitor General, representing the NLRC, raised a procedural objection, arguing the petition was premature for failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC, thus failing to exhaust administrative remedies.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) Whether the petition for certiorari was prematurely filed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies by not filing a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC; and (2) Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding the dismissal illegal and ordering the reinstatement of an employee found guilty of taking company property.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the NLRC’s decision. On the procedural issue, the Court ruled the direct filing of the certiorari petition was proper. Citing Article 223 of the Labor Code, which states that NLRC decisions are “immediately executory even pending appeal,” the Court held that a motion for reconsideration is not an indispensable prerequisite for certiorari when execution is imminent and relief is urgently needed. The NLRC’s own rule providing a 10-day period before execution was declared invalid in Juan vs. Musngi for contravening the “immediately executory” mandate of the Labor Code. Therefore, exhaustion was not required.
On the substantive merits, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC’s ruling. While acknowledging management’s prerogative to dismiss employees for just cause like theft, the Court emphasized this right is subject to the State’s police power to ensure justice and humane treatment. The NLRC correctly considered the attendant circumstances: Francis had 15 years of unblemished service, the item taken was 16 ounces of used motor oil of minimal or no value (being waste), and the company failed to show how his continued employment would be prejudicial. Following the policy of resolving doubts in favor of labor, the dismissal was deemed too harsh a penalty disproportionate to the minor infraction. The NLRC’s modified award of six months’ backwages, instead of full backwages until reinstatement, was a valid exercise of its discretion to balance the interests of labor and management.