G.R. No. 93413 October 28, 1991
EDWIN DEL CARMEN, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Edwin del Carmen, a PLDT Installer/Repairman, was apprehended on April 18, 1988, near his residence by a company security inspector while in possession of one roll of PLDT telephone drop wire. He was subsequently served a memorandum requiring him to explain allegations of involvement in the illegal purchase of company materials from co-employees and attempting to deliver the wire to his house. An investigation was conducted. PLDT later dismissed him for serious misconduct and fraud. Del Carmen filed an illegal dismissal complaint, claiming he was merely unloading his personal bag from a co-worker’s service vehicle and was about to reload the company wire when apprehended. He also asserted that other company materials found in his house during a subsequent search were merely stored there for safekeeping, a practice he alleged was not prohibited at the time.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of del Carmen, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with backwages. On appeal, the NLRC reversed this decision. The NLRC found that the discovery of additional company-owned telephone instruments and wires inside del Carmen’s house, following his apprehension with the drop wire, clearly demonstrated a fraudulent intent to misappropriate company property. The NLRC held this constituted a just cause for dismissal under the Labor Code.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the dismissal of petitioner Edwin del Carmen.

RULING

The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion and affirmed the NLRC’s ruling, with modification. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that loss of trust and confidence is a valid ground for dismissal, especially for employees charged with the care and custody of company property. The Court emphasized that the nature of del Carmen’s work demanded utmost honesty and integrity. His act of being caught with company property at his residence, coupled with the subsequent discovery of more unauthorized company materials in his house, constituted clear and convincing evidence of fraud or willful breach of trust.
The Court rejected del Carmen’s defenses, noting that his actions were inconsistent with company rules and his fiduciary duties. While management’s right to dismiss was upheld, the Court, considering his length of service and the fact that the company did not suffer economic loss from the specific incident, tempered the penalty. Applying equity, the Court modified the NLRC decision by ordering PLDT to pay del Carmen separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. This balanced the employer’s right to protect its business from dishonesty with compassionate justice for a long-serving employee.