G.R. No. 102993 . July 14, 1995
CALTEX REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (CREA) and ARNELIO M. CLARETE, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Third Division), CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC. and/or EDGARDO C. CATAQUIS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Arnelio M. Clarete, a Mechanic B at Caltex Philippines, Inc., was dismissed for allegedly attempting to remove a bottle of lighter fluid from the refinery without authorization on April 13, 1989. Clarete’s version was that he found the discarded bottle, placed it in his bicycle basket, and proactively sought permission from the security guard at the gate to take it home. When told he needed higher authorization, he complied with the guard’s instruction to leave the bottle behind. Caltex’s counter-version was that the bottle was discovered hidden within a bag during a routine inspection, and Clarete failed to present a required gate pass. Following an administrative process, Clarete was terminated on August 24, 1990, for serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence, despite a prior acquittal in a related criminal case for theft based on reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s finding and upholding Clarete’s dismissal for serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the NLRC and finding the dismissal illegal. The legal logic centered on the substantive requirement for a valid dismissal: the employer must prove by substantial evidence that the employee committed a willful transgression justifying loss of trust. The Court found that Clarete’s act of seeking permission negated any illicit intent to steal or surreptitiously remove company property. His conduct demonstrated transparency, not deceit. His acquittal in the criminal case, while not determinative in administrative proceedings, bolstered the conclusion that the evidence of misconduct was weak and insufficient. The company’s charge of serious misconduct and loss of trust therefore lacked factual basis. Clarete’s actions did not constitute the willful wrongdoing required to sever the employment relationship under Article 282 of the Labor Code. Consequently, the dismissal was without just cause. As the termination occurred after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6715 , Clarete was entitled under Article 279 to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to full backwages, inclusive of allowances and benefits, from the time compensation was withheld until actual reinstatement, subject to deduction of earnings received during preventive suspension and any income from elsewhere during his dismissal.