G.R. No. 120450 February 10, 1999.
ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS-TUCP and RENATO FELIZARDO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, REPUBLIC FLOUR MILLS, GROUP OF COMPANIES and/or SELECTA ICE CREAM CORPORATION and BEN T. MAKIL, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Renato Felizardo was employed by respondent Republic Flour Mills-Selecta Ice Cream Corporation as a jet printer operator on November 16, 1991. On September 12, 1993, at around 7:00 a.m., he was apprehended by a company security guard while attempting to bring out of the company premises a pair of boots, one aluminum container, and fifteen pieces of hamburger patties without the required documents. During a security investigation on the same day, Felizardo submitted a written statement admitting the act. The following day, September 13, 1993, he was placed under preventive suspension and wrote a letter to his supervisor, D.M. Orpilla, Jr., asking for forgiveness and explaining that he intended to bring the boots home due to flooding, the container, and the patties which he claimed were about to be thrown away. However, Orpilla recommended Felizardo’s dismissal for dishonesty and theft, citing company rules. On September 27, 1993, Felizardo was dismissed effective September 13, 1993. He and petitioner Associated Labor Unions-TUCP filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ordered his reinstatement without backwages, finding dismissal too harsh for a first-time offender and considering the taken items, except the boots, as mere scraps. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and dismissed the complaint, upholding the dismissal based on the admitted theft and violation of company rules.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding petitioner Felizardo’s dismissal from employment, and whether dismissal was an appropriate penalty for the offense committed.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the NLRC decision, and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s order of reinstatement without backwages. The Court agreed with the Labor Arbiter that dismissal was not commensurate with the gravity of the offense. While Felizardo was guilty of the act, the value of the pilfered articles (boots, aluminum container, hamburger patties) was not substantial enough to warrant dismissal, especially considering he was a first-time offender with two years of service and not a managerial or confidential employee. The Court held that the employer’s right to dismiss must be balanced with the State’s policy to resolve doubts in favor of labor. A suspension would have sufficed as a penalty. Since Felizardo had been prevented from working since September 13, 1993, the period of his unemployment was deemed to have served as a reasonable suspension. Therefore, reinstatement without backwages was appropriate.