GR 116588; (January, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 116588 ; January 24, 1996
PRIMO T. TANALA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, DIANA S. OCHOA and/or VIA MARE CATERING SERVICES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Primo Tanala, a service driver for Via Mare Catering Services, was involved in an altercation with a co-employee, Rodolfo Laurente, at a restaurant near the company premises after their duty hours on November 9, 1992. The security guard reported the incident, noting that Tanala had taken a knife from his bag inside the company garage. Consequently, both employees were preventively suspended for thirty days. Following the suspension period, Tanala was not reinstated, prompting him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal. He argued the incident occurred off-premises and off-duty, making his suspension and subsequent dismissal illegal.
The labor arbiter ruled in Tanala’s favor, ordering reinstatement with back wages, finding the dismissal illegal. The arbiter relied on affidavits from Laurente and another co-employee stating they did not see Tanala with a knife. However, the NLRC reversed this decision on appeal, upholding the dismissal. The NLRC gave greater credence to the security guard’s detailed written report that Tanala had indeed taken a knife from his bag inside the company garage, a violation of company house rules.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the legality of Tanala’s dismissal.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s finding that the dismissal was for a just cause but modified the award due to procedural flaws and equitable considerations. On the substantive aspect, the Court agreed with the NLRC that Tanala violated a reasonable company rule against possessing deadly weapons on company premises. The positive, detailed testimony of the disinterested security guard, who affirmed seeing the act, was entitled to greater weight than the negative testimonies in the affidavits used by the labor arbiter, which merely stated the affiants did not notice a knife.
However, the Court considered the mitigating circumstances: the altercation itself occurred outside company premises after hours, and Tanala had rendered almost fifteen years of service without any prior infraction. In the interest of social and compassionate justice, he was granted separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service. Furthermore, the Court found a procedural due process violation, as Tanala was not furnished the required two written notices (charge and decision) before termination. Thus, the respondent company was ordered to pay an indemnity of P1,000.00 for this procedural lapse. The dismissal was substantively valid but procedurally defective, warranting the modified awards.