G.R. Nos. 97251-52 July 14, 1995
JOVENCIO MINA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, miners employed by Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc., were dismissed on December 3, 1981, after being allegedly caught in the act of “highgrading” or stealing high-grade gold ore on November 20, 1981. The company’s evidence included sworn statements from security guards, including the guard on post, Freddie Bragado, who stated he was threatened by the petitioners, an assay report confirming the ore was high-grade, and related criminal case documents. The petitioners presented a contrary version, claiming they were merely taking a bath after work and were framed by guards interested in monetary rewards for apprehensions.
The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring their dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with back wages. On appeal, the NLRC Third Division initially affirmed this decision but limited back wages to three years. However, upon the private respondent’s motion for reconsideration, a newly constituted Third Division, with different commissioners, reversed the earlier resolution and upheld the validity of the dismissal.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the motion for reconsideration was validly resolved by a differently composed NLRC division, and (2) whether the dismissal of the petitioners was for a just cause.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC’s decision. On the procedural issue, the Court ruled that the motion for reconsideration was validly acted upon by the newly constituted Third Division. Jurisdiction is vested in the Division as an entity, not in the individual commissioners originally assigned to it. Citing Pamintuan v. Llorente, the Court distinguished between the court as an institution and the judge as its officer. As long as the commissioners resolving the motion were duly assigned to that Division, the decision was valid.
On the substantive issue of dismissal, the Court found substantial evidence to support the finding that petitioners were engaged in highgrading. The factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality. The Court emphasized that it was not necessary for all elements of the crime of highgrading under P.D. No. 581 to be proven for dismissal to be justified. The petitioners’ positions as miners required a substantial degree of trust and confidence from their employer. The reasonable ground to believe they committed the act, established by the sworn statements and corroborative evidence, constituted a valid basis for the company’s loss of trust and confidence, warranting dismissal. The petition was dismissed.