GR L 55249 50; (October, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-55249-50 October 19, 1982
PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and VICENTE ERNESTO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Philippine Geothermal, Inc. dismissed its warehouseman, private respondent Vicente Ernesto, for his alleged involvement in the theft of company diesel oil. On August 15, 1978, a tanker delivered 10,000 liters of oil, which Ernesto acknowledged by signing the delivery invoice. However, the tanker, accompanied by Ernesto, left the project site without unloading. Ernesto misrepresented to the security guard that there was a misdelivery. The oil was diverted and sold. The tanker driver, Juan Reyes, in an extrajudicial confession, stated that the oil was sold and that he gave Ernesto a share of the proceeds, revealing Ernesto’s connivance.
The fiscal initially charged Ernesto with qualified theft but later, after a reinvestigation where Reyes did not testify, exonerated him and secured a dismissal of the criminal case. The company nevertheless dismissed Ernesto and filed an application for clearance to dismiss. Ernesto subsequently filed a complaint for reinstatement with backwages. The Labor Arbiter ordered reinstatement, a decision affirmed with modification by the NLRC.
ISSUE
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of Vicente Ernesto despite evidence of his involvement in the theft of company property.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the NLRC decision, holding that the labor tribunals committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the testimonies of the security guard and the tanker driver, which substantially proved Ernesto’s participation in the theft. Ernesto failed to rebut this evidence. The Court clarified that an employee’s exoneration in a criminal case, or the fiscal’s dismissal of the charge, is not binding on labor tribunals. The employer’s right to dismiss an employee is separate from criminal prosecution.
The legal logic is grounded on Article 283(c) of the Labor Code, which recognizes fraud or willful breach of trust as a just cause for termination. The employer presented sufficient evidence to establish a breach of trust, justifying loss of confidence. The Court cited precedent, including National Labor Union, Inc. vs. Standard Vacuum Oil Company, which holds that a conviction is not indispensable for dismissal; ample reason to distrust the employee is sufficient. Therefore, Ernesto’s dismissal was legally justified.